EV Range: Battery vs Bladder.

[giant_mtb]

I am very confident that, like masks & hand sanitizers from the lockdown era, the grid supply will expand to meet demand. Then we'll have a glut, because shortages are always followed by gluts.

I hope so. Otherwise California will be fucked, continuing to push mandated EVs while also asking people not to charge them. Chaos.

[veeman]

All state specific (notably California) future EV mandates are laughable because close to zero percent chance they will have public charge infrastructure in place to make it happen in the timelines that are required. It's laughable to think L.A. for example will have the infrastructure to be able to provide EV charging for the massive apartment complexes they have. How are all these people going to get to work? Their largest apartment complex has almost 4,500 apartments located in 144 acres. It's not like the state is flush with money either. I don't think 30 years from now is even plausible. 

[Morris Minor]

Throw into that the permitting, environmental impact review, licensing and litigation hell that will hold back every new substation & charge station project 

[ChrisV]

I hope so. Otherwise California will be fucked, continuing to push mandated EVs while also asking people not to charge them. Chaos.

Again, California was asking people not to use A/C or anything else, from 4-9pm. A/Cs get used then, which is a why those are called peak hours. But EVs rarely charge then. And since, even in California, EVs are a drop in the bucket compared to gas cars (or A/C use, they are not going to impact the grid there at all, especially as I said, most EVs charge overnight. And in California, a LARGE number of them are charging off of home solar, so the grid isnt' impaced by them at all.)

And again, why do you think it WON'T expand over the next 20-30 YEARS? Hmmm? It's expanded more than that in the last decade. The real issue for California (and other areas, like Northern Virginia) is the rapid rise of those HUGE multi megawatt drawing datacenters popping up all over. They are growing faster than EV USE and were NOT predicted.

All of you acting like EVs are the problem now or in the future, are simply factually, and mathematically, wrong

[ChrisV]

All state specific (notably California) future EV mandates are laughable because close to zero percent chance they will have public charge infrastructure in place to make it happen in the timelines that are required.   

What, over the next 20-30 years? The mandates aren't for replacing all cars in 2030 or 2035. That's mathematically and physically impossible, even if all NEW cars were mandated to be EVs tomorrow morning. Again, at the total new car sales rate in the US of 15 million per year, that's 20 years from the start of ALL EV production to replace most of gas cars out there. How is that timeline "laughable?" I mean, they've already expanded production of electricity to match the 100s of terawatts bitcoin mining needs, and the vastly more that the datacenters are using has been getting caught up rapidly, too. And think about the expansion of charging stations over even the last 5 years.

And, why do you think they need THAT much "public" infrastructure? MOST EV infrastructure is at home. If you have a 120v outlet, you have infrastructure. Unlike gas cars, you don't HAVE to go somewhere ELSE to fill up to start your day. You've already topped off overnight and are ready to go from home. So EVs don't HAVE to have charging facilities near where you live, like gas cars need close gas stations. If you could fill your gas car at home, how often would you NEED to go to a gas station, and how many/how close would you need gas stations to be to your house? Hmmm?

Even though LA has a lot of apartments, that's only about 20-25% of the population that needs a different way of dealing with charging. Incentives are already in place to help apartment and condo owners install charging at the facilities (or even just 120v outlets at parking spots). So even if public DC Fast charging needs to be built out, it's not for 100% of the population, but for less that 20-25%. This is the math that folks aren't seeing.

[veeman]

What, over the next 20-30 years? The mandates aren't for replacing all cars in 2030 or 2035. That's mathematically and physically impossible, even if all NEW cars were mandated to be EVs tomorrow morning. Again, at the total new car sales rate in the US of 15 million per year, that's 20 years from the start of ALL EV production to replace most of gas cars out there. How is that timeline "laughable?" I mean, they've already expanded production of electricity to match the 100s of terawatts bitcoin mining needs, and the vastly more that the datacenters are using has been getting caught up rapidly, too. And think about the expansion of charging stations over even the last 5 years.

And, why do you think they need THAT much "public" infrastructure? MOST EV infrastructure is at home. If you have a 120v outlet, you have infrastructure. Unlike gas cars, you don't HAVE to go somewhere ELSE to fill up to start your day. You've already topped off overnight and are ready to go from home. So EVs don't HAVE to have charging facilities near where you live, like gas cars need close gas stations. If you could fill your gas car at home, how often would you NEED to go to a gas station, and how many/how close would you need gas stations to be to your house? Hmmm?

Even though LA has a lot of apartments, that's only about 20-25% of the population that needs a different way of dealing with charging. Incentives are already in place to help apartment and condo owners install charging at the facilities (or even just 120v outlets at parking spots). So even if public DC Fast charging needs to be built out, it's not for 100% of the population, but for less that 20-25%. This is the math that folks aren't seeing.

I am all for promoting EV through the use of reasonable incentives. I do not think $7500 of Uncle Sam's money for a wealthy person to buy an $80 grand large EV SUV or EV pickup is fiscally responsible good public policy. I also differentiate between what is theoretically possible versus what is likely based on reality on the ground. We have 4 years of history of an EV friendly executive branch of the Federal govt and many years history of an EV friendly legislature in California. Biden has allocated billions of dollars towards public EV chargers. The rollout has been extremely slow. It is ludicrous to think that a 120 volt outlet will suffice for anyone who daily drives any significant distance to work. The average commute for someone in Los Angeles is over 30 miles and @80% of people use a car to commute to work. Theoretically a 120 volt outlet could suffice for that person; realistically it cannot. Because after work in the evening that person using the 120 volt outlet has additional driving responsibilities like getting groceries or seeing friends/family. To make a mandate that 100% of all new personal cars must be EV in a certain future time stamp is stupid. Because it will be impossible to make happen based on reality on the ground. And that reality is California does not have the money, land space, or infrastructure to make it possible that all California dwellers will only use EV for the foreseeable future. California cannot currently build a single high speed train from LA or Anaheim to San Francisco. How delayed is that project and how much overbudget is it?  I believe it is currently hundreds of billions of dollars short and decades delayed. And this is the state that you honestly believe will be able to make EV a plausible form of personal transportation for the people who don't own their own homes and live in high rise apartments?

Does California have surplus money? No.
Does California have net loss of tax paying citizens year after year? Yes.
Does California have a history of completing govt projects on time and on budget? No.
Does California have high population density concentrated cities? Yes.
Does California have the largest poverty rate of the 50 states? Yes.
Does California have the highest cost residential electricity rate of states in the continental U.S.? Yes.

When the govt, again and again, has to walk back "rules" because they were found to be non-sensical in the timelines proposed, it causes the citizenry to question the competence of that govt. This is a valid criticism and, in my mind, is grounds to replace the govt with new leadership which is more in tune with what is reality on the ground. 
 

[GoCougs]

120V? Charge rate on 120V is on the order of 2-3 miles of range/hour and lower for larger/heavier EVs.

To me it seems WtP have finally figured it out via failed public charging infrastructure, collapsing EV market, (sorta) walk back of EV mandates, that EVs are a luxury for the scant few who can legit afford them and that forcing 90%+ of us to accommodate said ~10% is a really bad idea.

[Morris Minor]

I remember reading about why Malaise Era cars were so appalling. The government had imposed emission & fuel economy standards on a time frame the manufacturers could not properly meet in their normal clean-sheet-to-delivery cycle time of five years. In the rush to meet the standards they delivered products that were horrible.

On EVs... I asked Grok. I was pessimistic and assumed the penetration would remain at 9%.

"Given that the useful life of an automobile is approximately 20 years, and given that the current uptake rate of pure EVs in the USA is currently 9% how long will it take the general fleet in service to get to substantially 90%?"

Here's the answer:

To estimate how long it would take for the general fleet in the U.S. to reach 90% pure electric vehicles (EVs) given current conditions, we can use a simple model:

1. **Current Fleet Composition**: Assume that at the start, 9% of new sales are EVs. However, the existing fleet is predominantly made up of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

2. **Fleet Turnover**:
  - If the useful life of an automobile is approximately 20 years, then on average, 5% of the fleet is replaced each year (1/20th of the fleet).

3. **EV Sales Growth**: For simplicity, let's assume that the percentage of new vehicle sales that are EVs remains constant at 9%, although in reality, this proportion might increase due to various factors like policy, infrastructure development, and consumer preference shifts.

Here's a simplified calculation:

- **Yearly Replacement with EVs**: If 5% of the fleet is replaced each year, and 9% of those replacements are EVs, then each year, 0.45% of the total fleet (5% * 9%) becomes electric.

- **Time to Reach 90% EVs**: To reach from 9% to 90%:

  - Total change needed = 90% - 9% = 81%
  - Annual increase = 0.45% per year

To find out how many years it would take to reach this 81% change:

Years = 81%/0.45% ≈ 180 years

However, this calculation makes several assumptions:

- **No growth in EV adoption rate**: If EV adoption rate increases, this time could be significantly reduced.
- **No early retirement or extension of vehicle life**: Changes in how long vehicles are kept or how quickly they are retired could affect this timeline.
- **Static total fleet size**: If the total number of vehicles increases, this would also change the dynamics.

Given these simplifications, real-world scenarios might look different:

- **Technological Advancements and Policy**: Government policies, improvements in battery technology, and infrastructure development could increase the adoption rate significantly.
- **Consumer Behavior Changes**: If consumers increasingly prefer EVs due to cost, convenience, or environmental concerns, the transition could happen much faster.

A more realistic estimate considering potential growth in EV market share might suggest a timeframe closer to 30-50 years, but this would require a more complex model incorporating expected growth in EV sales, changes in vehicle lifespan, and fleet size dynamics.

[giant_mtb]

Again, California was asking people not to use A/C or anything else, from 4-9pm. A/Cs get used then, which is a why those are called peak hours. But EVs rarely charge then. And since, even in California, EVs are a drop in the bucket compared to gas cars (or A/C use, they are not going to impact the grid there at all, especially as I said, most EVs charge overnight. And in California, a LARGE number of them are charging off of home solar, so the grid isnt' impaced by them at all.)

And again, why do you think it WON'T expand over the next 20-30 YEARS? Hmmm? It's expanded more than that in the last decade. The real issue for California (and other areas, like Northern Virginia) is the rapid rise of those HUGE multi megawatt drawing datacenters popping up all over. They are growing faster than EV USE and were NOT predicted.

All of you acting like EVs are the problem now or in the future, are simply factually, and mathematically, wrong

I hear you. I think my larger, overarching issue is that it's basically tyranny. The government forcing you to do something (buy an EV), but also forcing you to not do that thing (charging your EV) without proper infrastructure in place to make it wholly viable.

If datacenters are a problem for the grid, why aren't they forcing them to solve the problem as well? Do they ask datacenters to not operate between 4-9pm?

[GoCougs]

I know a (lot a) bit about datacenters!

Firstly, datacenters of any size are located close (sometimes VERY close) to power production, which greatly reduces power losses and grid expansion (read: such losses and grid expansion are a barrier to EV adoption).

Secondly, datacenters' power consumption is a known constant - turn it on and off it goes (read: grid load fluctuation due to ad hoc EV charging is a barrier to EV adoption).

Third, datacenters' power consumption is only ~4.5% of total US power consumption. Electrifying the US vehicle fleet (both retail and industrial) is estimated at 40% of all US power consumption) (read: total power consumption is a barrier to EV adoption).

One has to look "factually, actually and mathematically" at the issue as They say.

[GoCougs]

I will say, large datacenter fleet owners such as Google and Microsoft are bucking up and doing something about power consumption by actively getting datacenters off the grid: Three Mile Island nuclear plant will reopen to power Microsoft data centers and Google's new nuclear clean energy agreement with Kairos Power.

[Morris Minor]

I will say, large datacenter fleet owners such as Google and Microsoft are bucking up and doing something about power consumption by actively getting datacenters off the grid: Three Mile Island nuclear plant will reopen to power Microsoft data centers and Google's new nuclear clean energy agreement with Kairos Power.

I'm sure there's a resurgence going on in nuclear generation. The howling mob will have to choose which of its holy sacraments to abort: Fossil-Free Future, or No Nukes.

The kerfuffle over whether to close Diablo Canyon in California is an example.
https://apnews.com/article/diablo-canyon-nuclear-newsom-reactors-california-45f15ac6e3a39f4fe7bbd05a9fd30d8b

(It should be noted that there is room on the Diablo Canyon site to build two [maybe its three?] more reactors.)

[GoCougs]

Datacenter operators know they'll be sociopolitical targets even if the numbers don't merit it. Green energy isn't feasible at scale (save for hydro which is probably a touchier subject than nuclear) so nuclear it is. I've been out of the datacenter space for a few years now but probably through "lobbying" they're getting permission to purse nuclear.

[AutobahnSHO]

FB is building a data center 10miles up the road from us. New guy at church is an electrical engineer working on them. He typically moves every two years to a new one.

#1 location choice is power. This spot is in between two major grids. There will be new high voltage lines run from both, so they will have redundant connection.

I'm sure taxes come into play some too?