Zero carbon emissions for major airline -- Do you think this is achievable? If so, how?

[Cap'n Jack]

We can all relate visually to a cumulus cloud, although everybody may have their own idea about how many cubic kilometers it is. I want to compare one to a same-size cloud of pure CO2 a G-V makes from jet fuel. How many years would it take?

Actually, not that long. Less than 1300 hours, for a 3 km cloud on a side (as per your insistence).

I've seen 3 kilometers mentioned in years gone by

Now, however, this "typical" cloud size has been conveniently reduced in size to a single kilometer by internet denizens. I am a skeptic. I suspect a scientist (a lazy one) changed the standard size cumulus cloud to one kilometer because it renders a billion cubic something or anothers, but not a billion pounds—which is what I'm after.

They actually measure these things. Mean size is about a kilometer. This particular paper dates to before the internet.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj1965/60/2/60_2_691/_pdf

 

[dtuuri]

Actually, not that long. Less than 1300 hours, for a 3 km cloud on a side (as per your insistence).


View attachment 95806

I grabbed a carbon offset calculator and came up with 188 years: Carbon Offset Emissions Calculator for Private Jet Flights - Download (paramountbusinessjets.com)

I'm not claiming I did it right or even know what I'm doing. I input 500 hours and got 5,306,650 lbs of carbon per year for a G-VSP.

I divided that into a "1" followed by 9 zeros and got 188.44 years.

Did I make a mistake somewhere?

They actually measure these things. Mean size is about a kilometer. This particular paper dates to before the internet.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj1965/60/2/60_2_691/_pdf

Thank you. It looks like 3 kilometers is within reason for typical cumulus clouds.

 

[tspear]

"It" doesn't "work" in my visualization, although it might in yours. I wish to compare a typical one billion pound cumulus-sized cloud of pure water vapor with the CO2 produced by a G-5 Gulfstream corporate jet. The actual size, whether one kilometer or three or any other dimension is moot as long as it's "typical". I'm postulating that it takes a long time for such a gas hog to impact the planet as much as any single little white puffy cloud does every single day.

You fundamentally are missing the point. Water depending upon form has differing effects on the environment for heat absorption and retention. Further, the effects of water differ from CO2; so your comparison is not valid. The only aspect that CO2 and water have in common for purposes of this discussion is both contribute to climate change.

Tim

 

[dtuuri]

You fundamentally are missing the point. Water depending upon form has differing effects on the environment for heat absorption and retention. Further, the effects of water differ from CO2; so your comparison is not valid. The only aspect that CO2 and water have in common for purposes of this discussion is both contribute to climate change.

Do you disagree that it takes 188 years for a G-V to produce one billion pounds of carbon? If not, then how big of a cumulus cloud would have the same greenhouse effect? Keep in mind the cumulus cloud of water vapor would exist in its full size today, tomorrow and the day after that, in perpetuity, whereas the CO2 made by a G-V is on the installment plan with a much lower average daily balance..

 

[Dan Thomas]

No that's not it. We can all relate visually to a cumulus cloud, although everybody may have their own idea about how many cubic kilometers it is. I want to compare one to a same-size cloud of pure CO2 a G-V makes from jet fuel. How many years would it take? I calculated this maybe ten years ago on the back of an envelope based on an article I read informing that an average or a typical cumulus cloud weighed a billion pounds. IIRC, the diameter of said cloud was 3 kilometers. I used a carbon formula for a G-V from available information at the time.

Now, however, this "typical" cloud size has been conveniently reduced in size to a single kilometer by internet denizens. I am a skeptic. I suspect a scientist (a lazy one) changed the standard size cumulus cloud to one kilometer because it renders a billion cubic something or anothers, but not a billion pounds—which is what I'm after.

Along the way on the path to help me, there are knowledgeable people insisting my billion pound cloud is incorrect. But it's MY cloud and I can make it as big as I want!

A cubic kilometer of dry air, at sea level and standard temperature, weighs 2,710,436,869 pounds. Your scientist was probably including the weight of the air in his hypothetical cloud.

Some won't believe this. Air is heavy stuff; it's the reason it can lift balloons and the reason we can fly heavier-than air machines. IIRC, the weight is .07681 pounds per cubic foot. It means that, in some offices, the weight of the air in that room can outweigh the occupants.

 

[dtuuri]

A cubic kilometer of dry air, at sea level and standard temperature, weighs 2,710,436,869 pounds. Your scientist was probably including the weight of the air in his hypothetical cloud.

Some won't believe this. Air is heavy stuff; it's the reason it can lift balloons and the reason we can fly heavier-than air machines. IIRC, the weight is .07681 pounds per cubic foot. It means that, in some offices, the weight of the air in that room can outweigh the occupants.

I got my first insight to this by reading "Stick and Rudder". A cubic yard of air weighs 2.02 pounds, IIRC. Ever since, I've imagined cubes of Styrofoam being smashed downward by my wings in order to sustain flight. There's a whole lot of "Styrofoam cubes" between here and the Maldives.

 

[Larry in TN]

It taxes the components of the grid when a lot of the power draw is used simultaneously. It's not like the cars will be charging for hours on end all night long, but it will be right around peak load times.

The timing of EV charging is easy to address.

You can program EVs to charge when you want them to charge.

Time-of-day metering is used in areas where the grid is taxed during the peak-use hours. Under such systems, EV owners are incentivized to set their cars to charge when electricity is cheapest which is at night, after the peak-use period.

 

[Dan Thomas]

The timing of EV charging is easy to address.

You can program EVs to charge when you want them to charge.

Time-of-day metering is used in areas where the grid is taxed during the peak-use hours. Under such systems, EV owners are incentivized to set their cars to charge when electricity is cheapest which is at night, after the peak-use period.

So everyone will program them to charge at 2 AM, and the load will crash the system. These things can draw a lot of amperage. The utility companies would have to schedule charge times by surnames or streets or something, similar to lawn sprinkling regulations in a lot of places.

 

[Dan Thomas]

The "new ice age" is from the 70s, not the 60s. It is an old canard that people throw out as a smoking gun, generally to delegitimize climate change arguments. The "new ice age" school of thought was never widely accepted in the scientific community and was quickly discarded. The only reason that the story persists is that two major news magazines published scary cover stories about it. Concerns about climate change (due to accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) among scientists was already germinating in the 1950s. And those predictions are definitely playing out.

And the "population bomb" concerns voiced 50 years ago? They are also playing out as suggested. Global population has roughly quadrupled in the last 50 years. So I find your argument that "predictions have fallen totally flat" unconvincing.

And human nature being what it was back then and what it still is, we still can't trust so much of what we're being fed. I don't see the predictions you mention being played out to any great degree now, and an awful lot of others don't either, including a lot of actual climate scientists.

The population bomb predictions were ridiculous, yet many believed them. I remember being told that in 50 years we'd all be starving or dead because of the lack of food, and if we weren't dead we'd all be crowded together and have very little space. All of that was supposed to happen before now. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html

2.5 billion in 1950, 7.8 billion now. 3.7 billion in 1970, 50 years ago. Your "quadrupled in 50 years" is way off. It's just over double. It has quadrupled since about 1925. It's a result of improved health care worldwide, better crop breeding and pest control and fertilizers, and reduced poverty. There's been a huge reduction in worldwide poverty in the last 50 years. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/p...e-poverty-continues-but-has-slowed-world-bank

And a huge part of that increase in health care and crop production and poverty reduction has been due to fossil-based energy and the many thousands of products made from oil and natural gas. We shut it all down at our peril.

 

[Larry in TN]

So everyone will program them to charge at 2 AM, and the load will crash the system.

Facts not in evidence and unwarranted extrapolation.

Where are the EVs charging during dinner time crashing the grid now? It isn't.

An EV only has to replace the energy used that day. It isn't a daily 0%-100% recharge. Most EVs will be charging for less than an hour per night.

It'll be a long time before we can produce enough EV batteries to support an EV fleet that the current grid can't support during off-peak hours. Time-of-day metering allows the electric producers to shift the demand away from their peak times. That gives them time to expand the grid's capacity over many years. Charging is already controlled via connected apps. Those apps can be used to coordinate with power suppliers to charge when the grid wants them to charge in return for the lowest rates.

Also, EV owners are significantly more likely to have solar, often with battery storage, to offset their electrical use or use their solar production to charge their cars.

 

[Bob Noel]

talk about unwarranted extrapolation....

 

[denverpilot]

LOL right? I can’t even make it to town without using enough energy (at current home fast charger rates) to not need two hours of charging, let alone the return trip or actually going somewhere in town.

I’ve done the math on solar for out here too with plenty of land to cover the place in panels. It doesn’t have any ROI. Panel output would be low enough by before payoff they’d need replacing. Our co-op electrical offers zero rebates, either. None. They price reasonably for the population density and constant maintenance out here. (They did complete pole replacement over a massive area a few summers ago. Too many outages from wind. Buildings are far too scattered to trench in anything.)

Some impressive pipe dreams some folks have who don’t understand battery and electrical efficiency outside the rat colonies. An hour of charge a night... LOL. I can’t remember having anything less than a two hour commute one way when I lived in Calif in the LA area, either. That was in 1991. I can’t imagine it’s gotten any better. Office was Burbank, reasonable (well not really but non-bankruptcy-inducing) housing was the Santa Clarita Valley. (Anyone still stuck there — can keep that silliness by the way.) Other regular business trips to Oakland and the Bay Area in the mid 90s, were no better. Perhaps worse.

I assume Larry “in TN” is in a nice sized metro, not rural (where electric doesn’t work) nor dense population (like massive parts of both coasts) where none of that applies at all.

(Mainly just laughing at the one hour charge thing. No friccken way in either place.)

As far as nighttime load charging off the grid goes, the US is less than 2% EV. Pretty sure the discussion is about a much higher percentage. Without nuke plants starting construction in the West now (25 year lead time once approved) we won’t have the capacity out here. Simply doesn’t exist.

We added four massive coal units to the State about a decade ago just to cover the people-moving-here growth rate in base load. Four because the companies have to schedule maintenance.

(Different companies own them, same location for rail access however. They sell each other power during maintenance down-time and stagger their maintenance outages.)

They’d need about 4 more to charge any significant number (percentage-wise) of EVs and quite a few rural areas would need massive upgrades. It’s not super uncommon to still see houses with 100A mains out here that can’t go higher.

As far as apps to coordinate with the power company and such go... well I’m one of five on the Starlink Beta but I wouldn’t trust our rural internet for anything even slightly critical regarding getting to work from out here. My life and career already have enough software bugs to add more anyway. But definitely let me know when you’re trenching in fiber out here so stuff like that is even reasonable. The co-op barely got smart meters two years ago and their implementation is pretty much still broken. Just the way it is outside of cow town.

 

[Larry in TN]

I can’t even make it to town without using enough energy (at current home fast charger rates) to not need two hours of charging

14,300 miles per year / 365.25 days per year = 39.15 miles per day. A Tesla Model 3 charges about 30mph using the included mobile connector on a 240v outlet. 44mph on a Tesla Wall Connector on a 60A breaker.
https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation

I’ve done the math on solar for out here too with plenty of land to cover the place in panels. It doesn’t have any ROI.

I never said it did. I said that EV owners are more likely to have solar power than the general population. They are.
https://www.solarunitedneighbors.or...s-solars-strong-connection-electric-vehicles/

I can’t remember having anything less than a two hour commute one way when I lived in Calif in the LA area, either.

My most frequently driven car, in a household of three drivers, has less than 9,000 miles in over two years of ownership. The other two cars drive even fewer miles. That's why anecdotal data points aren't very useful. American's average about 14,300 miles per year.
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/

As far as nighttime load charging off the grid goes, the US is less than 2% EV. Pretty sure the discussion is about a much higher percentage.

We have a long way to go before we're maxing out our unused off-peak capacity.

As far as apps to coordinate with the power company and such go... well I’m one of five on the Starlink Beta but I wouldn’t trust our rural internet for anything even slightly critical regarding getting to work from out here.

Most people don't live in areas so rural that they can't use an app to schedule their car's charging. Some people do, of course, but not a significant amount. Most people live where reliable power and internet service is available. They are the ones who'll be driving EVs. They will drive EVs because the total cost of ownership is lower. Fleets will convert to EVs for the same reason. A minority, who's location or usage patterns are not conductive to EVs, will continue to drive ICE vehicles.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/30/tesla-model-3-vs-honda-accord-comparable-5-year-cost-to-own/

My life and career already have enough software bugs to add more anyway. But definitely let me know when you’re trenching in fiber out here so stuff like that is even reasonable.

Power companies have already deployed similar technology which shuts down high-draw usage when demand approaches capacity. You don't need high-bandwidth or low latency. You only need to be able to send and receive infrequent, short data packets. No different from the hundreds of other IoT devices that are in many of our homes now. Consumers who participate are rewarded with lower power rates.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/lo...stat/283-8fdf6e02-6955-4981-8529-b4cefecc5b7c

 

[PaulS]

I used to think electric cars were a sham, a net energy loss, dirtier than IC cars, until I realized just how efficient they are and how well they work. I keep saying that the current subsidies and credits for present EVs are a mistake. A better use of at least some of these funds would be to create a national reward for the first inventor or company that can manufacture a battery that has let's say maybe 1/4 or 1/2 the power density of gasoline, can be recharged in some reasonable amount of time and is useful for at least a few years or maybe 50,000 miles. This breakthrough would solve so many problems. The prize for someone or some company that produces this product should be something on the order of $1 billion. I think the IC engine would be obsolete within 10 years if this was done.

 

[denverpilot]

14,300 miles per year / 365.25 days per year = 39.15 miles per day. A Tesla Model 3 charges about 30mph using the included mobile connector on a 240v outlet. 44mph on a Tesla Wall Connector on a 60A breaker.
https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation

Can’t do it. 60A breaker ain’t happening at 220 in my house. We’re also a two car household and both of us (in a normal year) are thousands of miles above 14K.

Nice try. Don’t forget you also need to charge my tractor. LOL.

I never said it did. I said that EV owners are more likely to have solar power than the general population. They are.
https://www.solarunitedneighbors.or...s-solars-strong-connection-electric-vehicles/

Yup. At the 2% uptake rate. You literally don’t have enough roof space in anything denser than a single family home with two 60A circuits. I would barely have enough space on 5 acres at my latitude for reliable wintertime charging plus the house. Ain’t happening.

My most frequently driven car, in a household of three drivers, has less than 9,000 miles in over two years of ownership. The other two cars drive even fewer miles. That's why anecdotal data points aren't very useful. American's average about 14,300 miles per year.
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/

Noted: Your anecdote is also useless. LOL

We have a long way to go before we're maxing out our unused off-peak capacity.

Before the four coal plants were built, natural gas peaker plants were in constant use to cover dead of winter and top of summer loads here. So much so it became a safety issue for those plants. Maybe your area has excess capacity, ours has some now but nothing that’ll cover even a 20% uptake from current numbers.

Most people don't live in areas so rural that they can't use an app to schedule their car's charging. Some people do, of course, but not a significant amount. Most people live where reliable power and internet service is available. They are the ones who'll be driving EVs. They will drive EVs because the total cost of ownership is lower. Fleets will convert to EVs for the same reason. A minority, who's location or usage patterns are not conductive to EVs, will continue to drive ICE vehicles.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/30/tesla-model-3-vs-honda-accord-comparable-5-year-cost-to-own/

TCO is a number that will rise significantly when the (poorly) regulated power companies have a captive audience. Always happens. Oh woe is me we can’t make our dividend payments... we all know that’s coming.

Power companies have already deployed similar technology which shuts down high-draw usage when demand approaches capacity. You don't need high-bandwidth or low latency. You only need to be able to send and receive infrequent, short data packets. No different from the hundreds of other IoT devices that are in many of our homes now. Consumers who participate are rewarded with lower power rates.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/lo...stat/283-8fdf6e02-6955-4981-8529-b4cefecc5b7c

Im not even going to bother explaining all the quality and other problems those systems have today, let alone bugs and security issues already bad enough one could drive a Mack truck through them. Having done data networking for 30 years plus — it’ll be “fine” except when it isn’t. Just Friday I was on an industry group call listening to manufacturers of even more important stuff than this BEG the Feds to let a national lab take over hardware and software testing for security because it is eating the critical infrastructure industry alive. Security companies are essentially writing their own prices and delivering dubious value at this point in time for what they cost. We could easily spend four times our previous annual IT budget on this silliness and it doesn’t fix the root cause problem: Inherently insecure mobile devices.

If you think packet size is the problem over reliability and life-safety overrides and such... you definitely don’t work in a critical IT role.

(Our company is just outside of that event horizon in a critical industry and in my summary of just this week’s industry players meeting I listed “stay far off the radar” as a critical goal. We get sucked into this security morass we’ll be passing along all of those costs, I guarantee it. We already are now and it’s only barely begun for us.)

I’m a tech nerd and love the possibilities of anything electrical and electronic but it’s a niche right now. You scale it, it won’t get cheaper. It’ll get outrageously expensive real fast...then maybe get cheaper.

Like I said, basics first — I’m not re-doing the wiring of the house. New homes may handle it. Mine and lots of others won’t. And that’s just the beginning of costs to even attempt it.

It’s either a rich guy hobby where we live or a pipe dream. I wrote a check for a new tractor without blinking, it’s an actual requirement. Price one sometime. Solar? Run the numbers regularly, no point. EV? Most wouldn’t survive the dirt road. Etc.

My main point is, nothing about your hobby idea is compatible with where I live. It’s not scaled up compatible with the city to the west even. Fun ideas but ultimately broken. It’s just engineering numbers. West of the Mississippi and north of 40 latitude, it’s not really workable for the majority. It also breaks other economies of scale making costs go up for those also.

Can folks with exactly correct circumstances do it? Sure. Spend your fun money however you like. As a grand plan for everybody? Not even close. Not without nukes and a bunch of em.

As an aside, Covid probably has the side effect of closing roughly 30% of business real estate here for good. That’s one thing that will lower total consumption and not just move the tailpipe to the coal plants.

It’ll be a long time before our office space is at capacity again. Be interesting to see if we sell it into a down market. Wasn’t truly a need for any but one of our six businesses and they needed warehouse space, not offices. Big waste of energy heating and cooling the place. Enormous waste having people drive to it.

I’ll be glad to see the “open floor plan daytime people storage units full of cubicals” concept continue to die.

 

[Everskyward]

There are a lot of city people who would find home charging logistically hard. Especially those without garages. I have a garage space, but no outlet nearby, certainly not 220. Also I would be using shared building electricity, not from my home circuit that I pay for myself. Of course, that could be an advantage until someone decides to complain.

 

[denverpilot]

There are a lot of city people who would find home charging logistically hard. Especially those without garages. I have a garage space, but no outlet nearby, certainly not 220. Also I would be using shared building electricity, not from my home circuit that I pay for myself. Of course, that could be an advantage until someone decides to complain.

We had similar in the first place we owned, multi dwelling and one car worth of garage that wasn’t on our meter.

Next house had the garage space (barely) but one of the garages was detached and fed with only a single 120V branch at 20A. The main panel was again, 100A only and it cost a fortune to replace when a storm damaged it, but we tried to get a higher amperage pole drop in that process and were rejected. If we hadn’t been that would have been the time to upgrade. Otherwise people rarely change their drop’s current. And that’s overhead. If it were buried I wouldn’t even consider it, cost would be stupid.

Which... partially explains why welding was never a thing in all the fun shop stuff I’ve done. Ha.

This place has a welder circuit in the garage but nowhere near the ability to do two vehicles worth of charging.

By the way, Larry mentioned powerwall plus solar — I guess he missed the news that Tesla announced last week.

They won’t sell you that combo anymore.

Nobody is quite sure why — they aren’t giving a real story — but Elon doesn’t like bleeding money so... something is very wrong there.

I’m an electronics nerd so... can always build your own battery plant... been there done that in the commercial telecom world many times over... it ain’t cheap and none of it lasts very long before you’re rebuilding it again...

Also doesn’t matter which battery chemistry — after that I’ve seen in the commercial world — there’s no way any battery plant is living inside the main structure either. I want a fire wall between them and where I sleep. Either a properly firewalled garage install or an outdoor addition also fireproofed/containment oriented. But that’s just me.

Problem there is environmental control. Batteries hate temperature swings. So now you’re burning power to heat and cool batteries... vicious cycle. Nope. No thanks. Battery systems are a PITA.

 

[tspear]

@denverpilot

Your home is the exception, not the rule. When will you likely get an EV, I would say it will not come to many really rural areas for a couple decades. Too much infrastructure will need to be upgraded and may still likely need to be enhanced, or deployment of local reserves at your home which draw power 24x7 but allow burst charging of the EVs.

@Everskyward

All solvable problems. My daughter's apartment complex recently did a survey if people wanted to have access to level 2 charges in the garage (for a fee of course).
Give it time, it will happen.

Tim

 

[dtuuri]

Thanks all, for the nice interlude on EV charging while others contemplate how big a cumulus cloud needs to be every day for 188 years to equally offset the carbon produced by a G-V over the same period. Now to tie it all to the OP, since nobody refuted the 188 year interval. In review:

Less than 1300 hours, for a 3 km cloud on a side (as per your insistence).

The only aspect that CO2 and water have in common for purposes of this discussion is both contribute to climate change.

Do you disagree that it takes 188 years for a G-V to produce one billion pounds of carbon? If not, then how big of a cumulus cloud would have the same greenhouse effect? Keep in mind the cumulus cloud of water vapor would exist in its full size today, tomorrow and the day after that, in perpetuity, whereas the CO2 made by a G-V is on the installment plan with a much lower average daily balance..

If a G-V takes 188 years to damage the atmosphere as much as a single every-day, ubiquitous cumulus cloud, as common as pebbles on the beach — and that amount is considered "excessive" — then United Airlines is easily a thousand times more damaging to the planet and should cease operations immediately for the good of us all! Only the most important people should be allowed to have the relatively more eco-friendly Gulfstreams, people like John Kerry and Al Gore. Those workers displaced at Boeing and United can find work assembling windmills and solar panels.

 

[X3 Skier]

All I contribute is I’ll be long gone before car mfg converts to all EV.

Cheers

 

[EdFred]

@denverpilot

Your home is the exception, not the rule. When will you likely get an EV, I would say it will not come to many really rural areas for a couple decades. Too much infrastructure will need to be upgraded and may still likely need to be enhanced, or deployment of local reserves at your home which draw power 24x7 but allow burst charging of the EVs.

@Everskyward

All solvable problems. My daughter's apartment complex recently did a survey if people wanted to have access to level 2 charges in the garage (for a fee of course).
Give it time, it will happen.

Tim

I wouldn't say that 60,000,000 rural Americans is an exception. And there's millions more of us that solar won't work because less than half the days where we live are considered sunny, and I'm at an ever further north latitude than Nate. But yeah, Millions and millions of us are the exception.

 

[tspear]

I wouldn't say that 60,000,000 rural Americans is an exception. And there's millions more of us that solar won't work because less than half the days where we live are considered sunny, and I'm at an ever further north latitude than Nate. But yeah, Millions and millions of us are the exception.

Not 60M. Not even close to that number. For example, when I lived in TN for two years in the Smoky Mountains, the county was roughly 50 miles due north of Knoxville on the other side of a mountain range. I would say it qualified as very rural .
About half the population was actually in the single town plus the randomly scattered around sub-divisions. Upgrading the infrastructure for those in the sub-divisions and those in the single city is rather easier than upgrading all the farms.
So, yes, there will be exceptions, but not nearly as many as you have alluded too.

Tim

 

[EdFred]

Yes, 60 million rural Americans according to census.gov

I know it sucks you don't get things your way.

About 60 million people, or one in five Americans, live in rural America.

The term “rural” means different things to different people. For many, it evokes images of farmlands and pastoral landscapes. For our purposes, we define rural based on the official Census Bureau classification. What is urban and what is rural is defined after each decennial census using specific criteria related to population thresholds, density, distance and land use.

In general, rural areas are sparsely populated, have low housing density, and are far from urban centers. Urban areas make up only 3 percent of the entire land area of the country but are home to more than 80 percent of the population. Conversely, 97 percent of the country’s land mass is rural but only 19.3 percent of the population lives there.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Where are the EVs charging during dinner time crashing the grid now? It isn't.
It'll be a long time before we can produce enough EV batteries to support an EV fleet that the current grid can't support during off-peak hours.

What's happening now is nothing compared to what will happen if most people have to use an EV. There's your problem, and it's not insignificant. And the battery-building limitations are not insignificant either.

Too many people--way too many--simply don't understand electricity and where it comes from, and it leads to all sorts of ignorant articles and assertions. The physics and math involved prove that it is not going to be any answer for a long time. Like this:

Next, from today until January 1st, 2030, when Biden’s plan calls for our emissions to be down to 3,000 MT of CO2 per year, there are about 454 weeks.

And that means we need to find sites, do the feasibility studies, get the licenses and the permits, excavate, manufacture, install, test, and commission two 2.25 gigawatt nuclear power plants EVERY WEEK UNTIL 2030, STARTING THIS WEEK.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/21/the-latest-co2-fantasy/

If you don't like it, you can do your own research and math and see what you get. It's not funny.

 

[Larry in TN]

Can’t do it. 60A breaker ain’t happening at 220 in my house. We’re also a two car household and both of us (in a normal year) are thousands of miles above 14K.

Then don't buy an EV. They obviously aren't compatible with your situation. Your situation is very different from the majority of Americans.

There are a lot of city people who would find home charging logistically hard.

That is an issue but charging stations in apartment complexes, condos, etc., are starting to appear. An EV owner would obvious look for such a complex when apartment shopping. I've seen some on YouTube who rely on SuperCharging but that doesn't seem practical to me. Another option is charging at work, as businesses are starting to add destination chargers in their employee parking lots, but I wouldn't want to rely on that as my primary charging solution, either.

 

[Everskyward]

That is an issue but charging stations in apartment complexes, condos, etc., are starting to appear. An EV owner would obvious look for such a complex when apartment shopping. I've seen some on YouTube who rely on SuperCharging but that doesn't seem practical to me. Another option is charging at work, as businesses are starting to add destination chargers in their employee parking lots, but I wouldn't want to rely on that as my primary charging solution, either.

Maybe, but it isn't as easy as some like to make it sound. Retrofitting an older building costs $$$. In my case it's a small condo, so the owners would need to vote. So far none of the 7 people with cars has an electric car or has expressed interest. Then there are the two who don't own cars who I'm sure would vote against it. Also, there are the people with no garage at all who park on the street. It seems to me that it makes the most sense for suburbanites with garages.

 

[Larry in TN]

What's happening now is nothing compared to what will happen if most people have to use an EV. There's your problem, and it's not insignificant. And the battery-building limitations are not insignificant either.

I certainly do not favor any system where people HAVE to use an EV. EVs have significant benefits for many but they also have limitations which make them unsuitable for others.

We have the infrastructure to charge more EVs then we can build batteries for for the near future by utilizing the currently unused off-peak capacity. That doesn't get us anywhere near 100% EVs on the road but it doesn't have to.

Next, from today until January 1st, 2030, when Biden’s plan calls for our emissions to be down to 3,000 MT of CO2 per year, there are about 454 weeks.

I am not a supporter of that plan. I favor letting the market work it out, which it will anyway, regardless of what the politicians do. Nuclear is the best option, IMO, but it's going to take a while for the politicians to figure that out.

 

[Larry in TN]

Maybe, but it isn't as easy as some like to make it sound.

100% adoption isn't required and it isn't even a reasonable goal. People with EVs, or those who want EVs, will choose housing where EV charging is possible and practical. Buildings without EV charging will continue to serve tenants with ICE vehicles.

It seems to me that it makes the most sense for suburbanites with garages.

That is certainly the most favorable situation for an EV owner and covers a significant portion of the car-driving public. You don't even need a garage. Just a driveway and a charger, or 240v outlet, on the exterior wall.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Maybe, but it isn't as easy as some like to make it sound. Retrofitting an older building costs $$$. In my case it's a small condo, so the owners would need to vote. So far none of the 7 people with cars has an electric car or has expressed interest. Then there are the two who don't own cars who I'm sure would vote against it. Also, there are the people with no garage at all who park on the street. It seems to me that it makes the most sense for suburbanites with garages.

That's the biggest deterrent for me: cost. It makes just about ZERO financial sense to buy an EV like a Tesla at the moment. You could buy a loaded Honda Civic for $10K less than the base Tesla Model 3 and it would take most people over a decade to recoup the $10K in extra cost through "fuel" savings. Not to mention the cost of at home charging equipment or electrical modifications to put a welder circuit in the garage. Then you need to replace the Model 3 battery somewhere around the 10-15 year range which blows the savings all to hell. Must be the pragmatist in me, though.

 

[Palmpilot]

Nuclear is the best option, IMO, but it's going to take a while for the politicians to figure that out.

Probably true.

The chart in post #87 shows nuclear being 20% of U.S. electric power generation last year. I was surprised to see that it was that high.

 

[dtuuri]

And that means we need to find sites, do the feasibility studies, get the licenses and the permits, excavate, manufacture, install, test, and commission two 2.25 gigawatt nuclear power plants EVERY WEEK UNTIL 2030, STARTING THIS WEEK.

Hmmm... better keep them EV's fully charged, so you can evacuate when the nuke plants melt down.

 

[Larry in TN]

You could buy a loaded Honda Civic for $10K less than the base Tesla Model 3 and it would take most people over a decade to recoup the $10K in extra cost through "fuel" savings.

There are also significant savings in maintenance costs.

https://electrek.co/2020/09/26/tesl...extreme-low-cost-minimal-battery-degradation/

Then you need to replace the Model 3 battery somewhere around the 10-15 year range which blows the savings all to hell.

That hasn't been an issue. There have been a small number of battery replacements under warranty but those have been failures, not worn out battery packs. The batteries have been performing well at over 250,000 miles with some exceeding 400,000 (pre-Model 3 cars). At that point, most ICE vehicles would have needed engine and transmission overhauls. The upcoming 4680 batteries are expected to produce a 56% improvement in cost per kWh of storage while improving the car's structural integrity and reducing manufacturing cost and complexity.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/22/everything-you-need-to-know-about-teslas-new-4680-battery-cell/

 

[SoonerAviator]

There are also significant savings in maintenance costs.

https://electrek.co/2020/09/26/tesl...extreme-low-cost-minimal-battery-degradation/

Sorry, but the maintenance costs on a Honda Civic are basically a blip in terms of ownership cost. $40-$50 for an oil change every 10K miles? Ok.

That hasn't been an issue. There have been a small number of battery replacements under warranty but those have been failures, not worn out battery packs. The batteries have been performing well at over 250,000 miles with some exceeding 400,000 (pre-Model 3 cars). At that point, most ICE vehicles would have needed engine and transmission overhauls. The upcoming 4680 batteries are expected to produce a 56% improvement in cost per kWh of storage while improving the car's structural integrity and reducing manufacturing cost and complexity.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/22/everything-you-need-to-know-about-teslas-new-4680-battery-cell/

Just about any Civic will go 200K+ without an "engine/transmission overhaul", and I guarantee the engine overhaul is cheaper than a new Tesla battery at current prices (roughly $13-$14K for a Model 3). Again, let me make it clear, there is just about zero value proposition from a pure economics standpoint. Yeah, there are a lot of good things about EVs, but RIGHT NOW it doesn't make financial sense to buy a $40K+ Model 3 in the name of being "green" or saving money. It's just not a winner versus other established alternatives in the same size/class of vehicle. The Model Y/S are even further into the realm of nevergonnahappen, although at least they are more of a direct competitor to the luxury class automakers like a BMW/Infiniti/Lexus so price and value is of little concern over that of social status. Also, what percentage of Tesla Model 3 owners are going to buy their car and hold onto it for 15+ years to drive 200K+ miles to realize that potential break-even? My guess is it will be in the low-single digits, so it will never achieve that goal for the original owners. They will upgrade every 5-7 years to get the latest tech, or change colors, or deal with a worn out suspension/interior, etc. just like normal car owners do. If everyone kept their vehicles for a decade or more, the new vehicle market would be in shambles. People don't generally buy new cars because their current ones are unreliable or are in need of overhauls at 100K or 150K miles. I'm sure with newer/cheaper battery tech and more players in the market, the prices will drop down for the lower EV models so that the price difference in a current mid-size ICE and a mid-size EV will be negligible.

Then, all we have to worry about is every apartment complex having to bust up their parking lots to try and provide charging stations, and businesses/homeowners wanting a couple of 220V runs to their garage. Better invest in copper and lithium!

 

[Bob Noel]

So you take the charging cord for your EV and plug the cord into a charging station and wander away for the night.... some enterprising thief unplugs your cord and plugs in their loooooong cord... stealing your charge (especially if it's one of the for-pay charging stations).

what could go wrong?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

So you take the charging cord for your EV and plug the cord into a charging station and wander away for the night.... some enterprising thief unplugs your cord and plugs in their loooooong cord... stealing your charge (especially if it's one of the for-pay charging stations).

what could go wrong?

About the same as someone stealing your gas now.

 

[SoonerAviator]

So you take the charging cord for your EV and plug the cord into a charging station and wander away for the night.... some enterprising thief unplugs your cord and plugs in their loooooong cord... stealing your charge (especially if it's one of the for-pay charging stations).

what could go wrong?

I could see it being a bigger problem with kids being mischievous and simply unplugging your car leaving you to come out to a vehicle that hadn't been charged as you had anticipated. That could potentially be a bigger problem, however, I know that current EV apps have the ability to alert you to such an interruption in charging assuming you pay attention to the alert if it happened at midnight.

 

[Bob Noel]

and what happens with the power company turns off the charging station as part of load shedding?

 

[SoonerAviator]

and what happens with the power company turns off the charging station as part of load shedding?

Well, if they shut off the power for EV charging, I would assume the gas station doesn't have any power to their pumps, either. You could drive to a location not affected to charge just like you would if you tried to get fuel and the station was shut down. When the power turns back on, the car will start charging immediately. It's likely only problematic if you were out and about at a charging station away from home when the power shedding occurred.

 

[denverpilot]

I Nuclear is the best option, IMO, but it's going to take a while for the politicians to figure that out.

It’ll take longer than I have left to live for them to figure it out.

I’ll be dead before a single next gen plant is finished and online.

Even the Canadians have already figured out how to refuel and rebuild a CANDU at massive cost but worth it, at this point. The world is multiple decades ahead of us.

The grid updates, housing updates, and such won’t be ready in an all out electric push for 20 years either.

Good rime to be an electrician I guess. Around here they can already nearly name their price and take whatever jobs they want.

The big expensive utility in the city (not the co op out here) just barely finished switching their telemetry system over from magnetic tape. They don’t spend a dime on upgrades if they can help it. I’m sure with zero significant bodies of water anywhere out here they have absolutely no plans for nuclear whatsoever.

Their last foray into nuclear was the ill-fated molten sodium reactor at Ft St Vrain, half a century ago-ish.

Current estimates are that Front Range growth will wipe out the aquifers in four generations so it won’t matter too much for cow town anyway unless we start withholding western slope water and squeezing off Nevada and California.

We tried to squeeze Kansas and lost at the Federal level and had to drain a nice place to fish permanently.

Cow town will dry up and blow away. Electricity hasn’t been and won’t be a significant problem. Wont be a significant interest outside of the fake environmentalists moving there either.

You know, the ones watering their bluegrass lawns from non replenishable aquifers. LOL. They drive Teslas. In their little oasis in the middle of a high desert.

Should be entertaining when the shooting starts back up over water — once that arc returns to where it came. Most of em don’t know we have Water Courts here, or historically why. They’ll find out shortly.

I’ll be just around long enough to see the beginnings of their mass awakening to that one. Smile at their silliness one last time. Maybe by then they’ll be all the way up to 10% EV adoption amongst the wealthy. Just in time to pack them full of stuff and move somewhere else.

Right now they need a fleet of hundreds of emissions exempt snowplows to even drive the few they’ve got. Haha. And that’s just one county.

 

[tspear]

Yes, 60 million rural Americans according to census.gov

I know it sucks you don't get things your way.

Ed,

Read what I said. Per the census, where I lived in TN was considered rural in 2010. Over half the population in that county will not have the kinds of issues that @denverpilot and you discussed. I am not saying no one will have issues, i am just saying it is not the 60 million people you mention.
For 2020: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...n-areas-for-the-2020-census-proposed-criteria
The Census is going even more granular and "urban clusters" It will be interesting to see how that affects the definition of rural where I was in TN.

Where I will eventually retire is in western MD. Still listed as rural, yet I know the majority of houses surrounding the lake there could handle EV no issue.

My point is, using the Census number and definition does not accurately portray the scope of the problem.

Tim