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.
There are some significant barriers to reach 50% electric vehicles by 2030. Large condominium and apartment complexes, particularly those built 30 or more years ago, simply do not have the electrical infrastructure in place to accommodate the power needs. For those with surface lots, underground parking, and parking garages with deeded spaces the cost and ability to get the power to a particular spot may be extremely expensive and in some cases impossible without infringing on the rights of other owners' spaces.
I also do not see a viable solution to meet the infrastructure needs without a much greater effort to involve the current energy suppliers and their retail partners in conjunction with the federal government. A massive build out of the entire electrical grid and expansion of source power plants, such as nuclear, are essential requirements. 7.75 years is not enough lead-time to get this job done without a huge move now.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,731 posts, read 81,641,337 times
Reputation: 58085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincolnian
There are some significant barriers to reach 50% electric vehicles by 2030. Large condominium and apartment complexes, particularly those built 30 or more years ago, simply do not have the electrical infrastructure in place to accommodate the power needs. For those with surface lots, underground parking, and parking garages with deeded spaces the cost and ability to get the power to a particular spot may be extremely expensive and in some cases impossible without infringing on the rights of other owners' spaces.
I also do not see a viable solution to meet the infrastructure needs without a much greater effort to involve the current energy suppliers and their retail partners in conjunction with the federal government. A massive build out of the entire electrical grid and expansion of source power plants, such as nuclear, are essential requirements. 7.75 years is not enough lead-time to get this job done without a huge move now.
And ironically, the people living in those big, older apartments are the ones for which the EV makes the most sense, being in a walkable area where they can get away with short trips that won't require a long range. In Seattle the city assumes that apartment dwellers take the bus, so they don't even require garages or off-street parking for new apartments, so no way to charge at home. I don't expect to see 150' long extension cords going out of apartment windows down to EVs parked in the street.
There are some significant barriers to reach 50% electric vehicles by 2030. Large condominium and apartment complexes, particularly those built 30 or more years ago, simply do not have the electrical infrastructure in place to accommodate the power needs. For those with surface lots, underground parking, and parking garages with deeded spaces the cost and ability to get the power to a particular spot may be extremely expensive and in some cases impossible without infringing on the rights of other owners' spaces.
I also do not see a viable solution to meet the infrastructure needs without a much greater effort to involve the current energy suppliers and their retail partners in conjunction with the federal government. A massive build out of the entire electrical grid and expansion of source power plants, such as nuclear, are essential requirements. 7.75 years is not enough lead-time to get this job done without a huge move now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140
And ironically, the people living in those big, older apartments are the ones for which the EV makes the most sense, being in a walkable area where they can get away with short trips that won't require a long range. In Seattle the city assumes that apartment dwellers take the bus, so they don't even require garages or off-street parking for new apartments, so no way to charge at home. I don't expect to see 150' long extension cords going out of apartment windows down to EVs parked in the street.
There are some significant barriers to reach 50% electric vehicles by 2030. Large condominium and apartment complexes, particularly those built 30 or more years ago, simply do not have the electrical infrastructure in place to accommodate the power needs. For those with surface lots, underground parking, and parking garages with deeded spaces the cost and ability to get the power to a particular spot may be extremely expensive and in some cases impossible without infringing on the rights of other owners' spaces.
I also do not see a viable solution to meet the infrastructure needs without a much greater effort to involve the current energy suppliers and their retail partners in conjunction with the federal government. A massive build out of the entire electrical grid and expansion of source power plants, such as nuclear, are essential requirements. 7.75 years is not enough lead-time to get this job done without a huge move now.
You're totally wrong.
There's a difference between the rate of new purchases and the cumulative sum.
50% of new vehicles does not mean 50% of total vehicles, so your energy timelines are probably at leasrt a decade off.
Second, it won't be that hard to increase energy generation with solar and batteries. Those won't be the only solutions, but they will be fast and cheap.
And ironically, the people living in those big, older apartments are the ones for which the EV makes the most sense, being in a walkable area where they can get away with short trips that won't require a long range. In Seattle the city assumes that apartment dwellers take the bus, so they don't even require garages or off-street parking for new apartments, so no way to charge at home. I don't expect to see 150' long extension cords going out of apartment windows down to EVs parked in the street.
Lol. 70% of people live in single family homes / duplexes / NOT apartments or condos.
So that's an easy 70% that can be converted to allow electric charging at home.
Some of the condos / apartments won't be able to convert easily, some will.
Many of those condos / apartments (such as in NYC / Chicago) don't even have a car!
And as new ones are built, they will have at least slow charging available at parking spaces.
BEV Mess Transit
One gallon gasoline = 33.7 kWh
Automobile, 12000 miles / annum, 30 mpg, 13,480 kWh
Total automobiles (U.S.) = 290 million, equivalent to 3.9 trillion kWh.
Total electricity consumption (2020) = 3.8 trillion kWh.
Substituting BEVs for ICE would more than double consumption, requiring an equivalent expansion of generating capacity (currently 1.12 trillion kW). Wuh Woh, Scooby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Based on the fact that to replace all ICE vehicles with BEV would necessitate DOUBLING the electricity generating capacity, AND, mining 43% of all lithium reserves in the USA, I can unequivocally state that we shall NOT be able to afford shifting to BEVs in any significant percentage. Not by 2030, nor 2040, or 2050.
. . . .
What option do we have left?
Electric Traction Rail.
Shifting from pneumatic tire on pavement to steel wheel on steel rail cuts energy consumption by 90-95%.
So a 1:1 conversion to rail would NOT require doubling the power generating capacity.
However, a single train can displace hundreds if not thousands of automobile trips.
Instead of 290 million automobiles, trucks, etc, we may only need 290 thousand trains.
THAT is the simple reason why we can't delay "getting back on track".
GO RAIL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
ROCKIN' THE NUMBERS GAME
ICE:
Peak thermal efficiencies around 35-40% for gasoline and 40-45% for diesel.
Electricity:
COAL : 33 - 45%
Coal fired electrical power plant efficiency: coal-fired power plants around the world today is 33 percent. Modern state-of-the-art plants can achieve rates of 45 percent.
OIL : 38%
Efficiency of 38% for oil-fired power generation.
NUCEAR : 33-37%
Typical nuclear power plants achieve efficiencies around 33-37%, comparable to fossil fueled power plants.
NATURAL GAS : 45-57%
Natural gas power plants have an efficiency between 45% and 57%, highest efficiency for a power plant type.
HYDROELECTRIC : 90%
Hydroelectric powerplants are the most efficient means of producing electric energy. The efficiency of today's hydroelectric plant is about 90 percent.
BEV: 77%
EVs convert over 77% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. However, if the source is NOT hydroelectric, the overall efficiency is lower than a gasoline or diesel engine.
I love the rail advocacy (because it *is* much more efficient in a lot of ways), but you have some errors in here aside from the strictly rail related bits. Rail is indeed incredibly inefficient in its energy usage.
Your calculation for energy consumption is wildly off for one primary reason which is you're erroneously using the total consumption of internal combustion engines, including their inefficiency, in trying to calculate the energy consumption needs for equivalent EVs. That's not going to work because EVs are much, much more efficient than their ICE counterparts. Something like a minimum of three times more efficient than their closest counterparts. A more minor point is that you chose an incredibly high average mpg for ICE vehicles (30 mpg is almost certainly not US consumer fleet average). Also, remember that we're still in fairly early stages for EVs and the efficiency is likely to increase and there is some possibility that solar rooftops on EVs make sense for a lot of people towards the end of this decade.
So already, we see that your energy consumption estimate is probably three times higher than actually necessary. However, that's total consumption. That isn't necessarily the same thing as total needed additional generation capacity. You may already know this, but there are very large daily and seasonal fluctuations in the amount of power consumed at any one point. The grid and infrastructure is generally built for that peak (or at least it's supposed to be), but there are many ways to even out that draw such as time-of-use so that generating capacity doesn't need to go up all that much. Another interesting part of this specific to BEVs though is that as the technology matures to make BEVs better, they also make one form of storage (and peak shaving) solutions much better in the form of battery improvements. BEVs may even end up being part of the solution itself is there a pricing mechanism for temporary storing when there is excess supply and distributing when there is excess demand.
The conversion and efficiencies listed are a bit of a mess here. That peak thermal efficiency for ICE is rarely reached whereas the numbers for generation you're using look like those for actual operating efficiencies. The average thermal efficiency going from well to wheel is generally nowhere near that peak efficiency so these numbers aren't comparable. Similarly, that BEV efficiency number you have there is likely inclusive of additional drain factors and not well to wheel conversion and the equivalent of that for ICE then even further drops the ICE efficiency. Another point is that a BEV can recover energy in braking and is generally equipped to do so at fairly high rates while an ICE generally when braking takes that as a total loss (even worse in practice--it produces additional wear on the brakes). Your oil efficiency is also a bit low as there are combined cycle generator plants for diesel (as there are for natural gas) that are much more efficient. Additionally, BEVs, as with electric rail, by dint of using electricity have a massive amount of flexibility in terms of where that energy source can be sourced from. As you've pointed out and in addition to those are solar, wind, and others, there are many, many tried and true pathways to economical electrical generation. There are very few of such for the gasoline or diesel used in ICE vehicles though (you can't even really put diesel in a gasoline vehicle or vice versa!) and every one of those sources would likely have been more efficiently used as fueling stock for a generator plant to power an electric motor drivetrain instead.
So those are the main issues--ICE vehicles are pretty terribly inefficient and are such in comparison to battery electric vehicles so there's nowhere near the kind of energy needs you think there would need to be to replace ICE consumer road vehicles. After that though, there's also that the replacement of those vehicles are going to be slow. ICE vehicles purchased today have a very good chance of being on the road even at the end of the next decade and so the switchover and the diminishing use of gasoline and diesel for road transport and the rise in use of electricity for such will be incremental.
Now let's get back to rail, which is very exciting. Rail is very efficient. Power efficient, resource efficient, space efficient, time efficient (or should be), etc. That doesn't change that BEVs in regards to rubber on asphalt road vehicles, are far more efficient than their ICE equivalents. One thing to keep in mind though is that as much as the current and continued development of batteries of sufficient cost and energy density to be useful for rubber tire on asphalt road vehicles, they are even better for steel wheel on steel rail vehicles. That main issue of battery weight for the energy density desired and for the right price point isn't nearly the same kind of penalty for rail because of that extremely low rolling resistance. The already developed standards for electrifying portions of rail track and for transmitting power among railcars are fantastic for battery electric. The issues of electrification of track whether it's NIMBYs complaining about sightlines or expanses remote areas far away from the grid and difficult to maintain or old operating infrastructure without the physical space for running lines or whathaveyou now become essentially non-issues with some degree of power storage onboard.
Lol. 70% of people live in single family homes / duplexes / NOT apartments or condos.
So that's an easy 70% that can be converted to allow electric charging at home.
Some of the condos / apartments won't be able to convert easily, some will.
Many of those condos / apartments (such as in NYC / Chicago) don't even have a car!
And as new ones are built, they will have at least slow charging available at parking spaces.
So your concerns are a big, fat, nothing burger.
Hmmm... There is something that I don't understand about what you have said in reference to NYC, but then maybe NY has changed a whole bunch from the '70s-'80s when I live there? No...that's not it, since I visited NY about 6 years ago, and the streets around the apartment buildings are packed with cars that are parked bumper to bumper, day and night. This is the case, in all of the NYC boroughs, and Manhattan.
Hmmm... There is something that I don't understand about what you have said in reference to NYC, but then maybe NY has changed a whole bunch from the '70s-'80s when I live there? No...that's not it, since I visited NY about 6 years ago, and the streets around the apartment buildings are packed with cars that are parked bumper to bumper, day and night. This is the case, in all of the NYC boroughs, and Manhattan.
In Manhattan / New York County total registered vehicles are only 15% of the population.
That % is much lower than places outside NYC, which are closer to like 80%
Thanks for helping proving my point!
Unless you live in any of the NYC boroughs' apartment buildings, you have no idea who difficult is to find a parking space. The dayshift workers leave their parking spaces for the night shift workers. People park on the streets, don't believe for a moment that and apartment building owner is going to install electrical outlets by the curbside so the apartment dweller to charge automobiles. That will never happen if they have to pay out of their pockets. It is so difficult to park a car in NYC the double-parking is common
And ironically, the people living in those big, older apartments are the ones for which the EV makes the most sense, being in a walkable area where they can get away with short trips that won't require a long range. In Seattle the city assumes that apartment dwellers take the bus, so they don't even require garages or off-street parking for new apartments, so no way to charge at home. I don't expect to see 150' long extension cords going out of apartment windows down to EVs parked in the street.
Nope.
Dense housing works better with mopeds, scooters, ebikes, etc than cars.
Electric works best with suburban/exburban living. Ppl who drive 30-100 miles per day should be the ones going electric. Charge at nite(use a battery pack to save money), and go away every morning on your long commute. Ultra commuters would save so much money by switching to electric, it's Rediculous
Also, work from home needs to become permanent in order to help out apartment folks.
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.
There is something that I don't understand about what you have said in reference to NYC, but then maybe NY has changed a whole bunch from the '70s-'80s when I live there? No...that's not it, since I visited NY about 6 years ago, and the streets around the apartment buildings are packed with cars that are parked bumper to bumper, day and night. This is the case, in all of the NYC boroughs, and Manhattan.
