Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My panel was on the wall shared with the garage so the EV wall plug is about a foot below on the other side of the wall - literally just over a foot of wire. Also a Tesla wall charger is not needed - the mobile charger cord works fine. According to the data, I saved $340 driving the Model X and DW saved $42 driving her Model 3 in August so easily pays back any reasonable cost to instal the 50 amp plug.
As far as TOU - there are many different plans all over the country but most should not require a seperate meter or any type of charger - both our LEAF and Tesla have the ability to set scheduled charging time. Just plug it in and it starts charging at the specified time. The EV rate saves me about $100/mo just for charging and probably another $60-100/mo by moving other use to overnight.
There’s no question I’m saving quite a bit. I drive a minimum of 400 miles per week. The savings helps to balance the cost of the car, which was more than an Accord, for example, but less than an Audi. The savings are important to me, but not the only factor.
My problem with electric cars are their shelf life. For example we have a 2004 VW Passat we bought new for around 15K. The car lasted through 3 different kids driving it to college. It’s got around 130,000 miles on it and now I have it back. It still runs really good, is easy on gas and very dependable.
About a fifth of global new vehicle sales in the *world* were plug-ins in June.
Hydrogen for light duty vehicles is incredibly silly as an idea for various reasons. The energy loss for going from feedstock to hydrogen to fuel cell is enormous. This also shows up in hydrogen per mile cost efficiency awful. Hydrogen fueling stations are incredibly expensive to both set up and to operate, and meanwhile there is no built in advantage akin to the home and other places delivery of "fuel" that eleectric plug-in vehicles have.
If you are talking about global sales of light duty vehicles in 2022 (81M), about 13% are a mix of BEV and PHEV (10.5M units sold, a fifth of that in China alone). The rest are ICE and Hybrids/Mild Hybrids because they don't count them in the plug-in category (for obvious reasons).
PHEV is falling as a % within its group (plug-in, which consists of BEV and PHEV), but non-plug in hybrids increased by 15%.
ICE are falling as well, but still constitute the largest portion (fell from 82% to 76%, yoy).
So, out of 81M units sold worldwide, about 70M are ICE and hybrid.
The question is whether a rise in BEV is due to the lack of hybrids, ICE and everything else, or increased adoption. https://www.ev-volumes.com/
[Cracked Crystal Ball Flag On]
BEVs will NOT be the dominant transportation vehicle in 20 years.
WHY?
USA has approximately 147 million private automobiles using petroleum.
To do a 1:1 swap, would not be possible.
#1 : there is not enough lithium ion battery production.
#2 : there won't be "cheap & plentiful" lithium after the first swap.
Oh, wait, I forgot to include all other ICE vehicles.
IN THE USA, 290 million vehicles were registered in 2021. The figures include passenger cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles.
A single EV has roughly 10 kilograms—or 22 pounds—of lithium in it. A ton of lithium metal is enough to build about 90 electric cars. Let's run with that in our example. (the lower value)
To build 290 million electric vehicles would require 2,895,000,000 kg (6.37 million lbs) of refined lithium.
2,895,000 tonnes (3,184,500 short tons)
Although the US has the world’s fourth-largest lithium reserves, measured at 6.8 million tonnes according to the US Geological Survey, production activity in the country is minimal.
OKAY, all we need to do is mine, refine 43% of all national lithium reserves, and build battery packs to replace the current stock of vehicles.
What will we do when we need to replace / swap batteries?
We can probably afford 1 swap, but 2?
> ouch <
#3 : Shifting to BEVs will be a large drain on the existing power grid. Unlike electric traction rail which has a 20:1 advantage over pneumatic tire on pavement, switching to electric power will drive up the price to "plug in". Already, commercial charging stations are veddy expensive. Imagine when folks "plug in" and rolling brown outs result. Oh my-y-y. Compound that with the probability that "renewables" will be promoted. Since wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable, BACKUP generation capacity will be needed (fossil fuels, anyone?). That doubling of production costs will hit us in the wallets. Let's say it "only" triples your monthly power bill. Can you dig it?
No, BEVs are not "worth it."
Currently they require taxpayer subsidies (rob one to bribe another).
They will cripple our power systems if operated in large numbers.
They don't have the range of an ICE, and any use of electrically powered accessories (AC/heater) reduces overall range.
HOWEVER, if the nation's governments stopped meddling (abolish all subsidies and penalties), common sense and eCONomics would support a widespread change to electric traction rail transportation, in all forms. For a fixed unit of fuel / energy, you can move 20 times as much by rail than what you can move by car, truck or bus.
Assume that 90% transitions to electric rail, and the remaining 10% is private automobiles, buses and trucks. At that reduced volume, there's no rush to ban the ICE, or switch to BEVs. Plus the reduced traffic will ease the wear and tear on roadways.
[Cracked Crystal Ball Flag On]
BEVs will NOT be the dominant transportation vehicle in 20 years.
WHY?
USA has approximately 147 million private automobiles using petroleum.
To do a 1:1 swap, would not be possible.
#1 : there is not enough lithium ion battery production.
#2 : there won't be "cheap & plentiful" lithium after the first swap.
Oh, wait, I forgot to include all other ICE vehicles.
IN THE USA, 290 million vehicles were registered in 2021. The figures include passenger cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles.
A single EV has roughly 10 kilograms—or 22 pounds—of lithium in it. A ton of lithium metal is enough to build about 90 electric cars. Let's run with that in our example. (the lower value)
To build 290 million electric vehicles would require 2,895,000,000 kg (6.37 million lbs) of refined lithium.
2,895,000 tonnes (3,184,500 short tons)
Although the US has the world’s fourth-largest lithium reserves, measured at 6.8 million tonnes according to the US Geological Survey, production activity in the country is minimal.
OKAY, all we need to do is mine, refine 43% of all national lithium reserves, and build battery packs to replace the current stock of vehicles.
What will we do when we need to replace / swap batteries?
We can probably afford 1 swap, but 2?
> ouch <
#3 : Shifting to BEVs will be a large drain on the existing power grid. Unlike electric traction rail which has a 20:1 advantage over pneumatic tire on pavement, switching to electric power will drive up the price to "plug in". Already, commercial charging stations are veddy expensive. Imagine when folks "plug in" and rolling brown outs result. Oh my-y-y. Compound that with the probability that "renewables" will be promoted. Since wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable, BACKUP generation capacity will be needed (fossil fuels, anyone?). That doubling of production costs will hit us in the wallets. Let's say it "only" triples your monthly power bill. Can you dig it?
No, BEVs are not "worth it."
Currently they require taxpayer subsidies (rob one to bribe another).
They will cripple our power systems if operated in large numbers.
They don't have the range of an ICE, and any use of electrically powered accessories (AC/heater) reduces overall range.
HOWEVER, if the nation's governments stopped meddling (abolish all subsidies and penalties), common sense and eCONomics would support a widespread change to electric traction rail transportation, in all forms. For a fixed unit of fuel / energy, you can move 20 times as much by rail than what you can move by car, truck or bus.
Assume that 90% transitions to electric rail, and the remaining 10% is private automobiles, buses and trucks. At that reduced volume, there's no rush to ban the ICE, or switch to BEVs. Plus the reduced traffic will ease the wear and tear on roadways.
In 20 years, there will still be tens of millions of ICE cars on the road, i.e. ICE cars sold over the next 10 years. The current U.S. government and several in Europe are trying to ban ICE car sales by 2030 or 2035, depending on the place. Japan, as well, and I think also China. But as you say, it would be cheaper and better to let the markets naturally evolve toward BEV instead of forcing it by government fiat.
It's possible and likely that the U.S. government will change either in '24 or in '28, and readjust toward a balanced energy policy of fossils and renewables. Killing fossils in '21 turned out to be a terrible mistake for various reasons.
PHEV's are almost as good as BEV's, minus the range problems, and are generally a lot cheaper. A 40-mile PHEV will be in electric mode almost all the time for city driving. Friends of mine with a Prius Prime say they never use gasoline, as long as they charge it up every night. But if they decide to drive to the boonies six hours to the north, it has the range and refueling flexibility.
I think PHEV's are the future, at least until BEV's achieve (1) longer range between charges, at least 1000 Km (600 miles), (2) the fire/explosion risk of Lithium Ion cells has been fixed, (3) the weight problem is addressed, and (4) it's easy to replace the batteries at a reasonable price.
[Cracked Crystal Ball Flag On]
BEVs will NOT be the dominant transportation vehicle in 20 years.
WHY?
USA has approximately 147 million private automobiles using petroleum.
To do a 1:1 swap, would not be possible.
#1 : there is not enough lithium ion battery production.
#2 : there won't be "cheap & plentiful" lithium after the first swap.
Oh, wait, I forgot to include all other ICE vehicles.
IN THE USA, 290 million vehicles were registered in 2021. The figures include passenger cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles.
A single EV has roughly 10 kilograms—or 22 pounds—of lithium in it. A ton of lithium metal is enough to build about 90 electric cars. Let's run with that in our example. (the lower value)
To build 290 million electric vehicles would require 2,895,000,000 kg (6.37 million lbs) of refined lithium.
2,895,000 tonnes (3,184,500 short tons)
Although the US has the world’s fourth-largest lithium reserves, measured at 6.8 million tonnes according to the US Geological Survey, production activity in the country is minimal.
OKAY, all we need to do is mine, refine 43% of all national lithium reserves, and build battery packs to replace the current stock of vehicles.
What will we do when we need to replace / swap batteries?
We can probably afford 1 swap, but 2?
> ouch <
#3 : Shifting to BEVs will be a large drain on the existing power grid. Unlike electric traction rail which has a 20:1 advantage over pneumatic tire on pavement, switching to electric power will drive up the price to "plug in". Already, commercial charging stations are veddy expensive. Imagine when folks "plug in" and rolling brown outs result. Oh my-y-y. Compound that with the probability that "renewables" will be promoted. Since wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable, BACKUP generation capacity will be needed (fossil fuels, anyone?). That doubling of production costs will hit us in the wallets. Let's say it "only" triples your monthly power bill. Can you dig it?
No, BEVs are not "worth it."
Currently they require taxpayer subsidies (rob one to bribe another).
They will cripple our power systems if operated in large numbers.
They don't have the range of an ICE, and any use of electrically powered accessories (AC/heater) reduces overall range.
HOWEVER, if the nation's governments stopped meddling (abolish all subsidies and penalties), common sense and eCONomics would support a widespread change to electric traction rail transportation, in all forms. For a fixed unit of fuel / energy, you can move 20 times as much by rail than what you can move by car, truck or bus.
Assume that 90% transitions to electric rail, and the remaining 10% is private automobiles, buses and trucks. At that reduced volume, there's no rush to ban the ICE, or switch to BEVs. Plus the reduced traffic will ease the wear and tear on roadways.
Just so everyone knows, most of this is complete nonsense.
What about the battery? Chances are the car won’t be worth what a new battery costs right?
Is that any different than an old car needing a new engine at 300,000 miles?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
