OT: Boom

@"medaille" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Kentis" said: You know what not many talk about? The curb weight of EV’s. A conventional F150 weighs  between 4069 lbs & 5697 lbs, where a F150 Lightning EV weighs between 6015 lbs & 6893 lbs. Thats alot more weight on the road, leading to increased wear & tear on the roadways as well as more severe car crashs & fires that are almost impossible to extinguish. 

This kinda reminds me of Thomas Edison, who built a basic infrastructure and several power plants generating DC electricity because, at the time, AC was too dangerous. One simple invention, the transformer, changed all that. 

It's important for science and technology to move forward despite challenges. It's inevitable that, over time, EV weight will go down and batteries will get smaller, lighter and more stable. 

or are EVs the DC electricity of the auto industry and the real step forward is a technology that is currently not getting the attention?  Are nuclear,  or some other source of energy or energy storage going to be what puts the nail in the grave of the internal combustion engine?  or maybe it will be solid fuels for autos that makes that transition.   I dont think that the current direction is likely the best solution for solving our worlds future transportation needs.  Batteries and electricity have come a long way in the last 20 years,  but where we are today is a long way aways from where it would need to be at to achieve the lofty dreams of the politicians that are demanding X by year 2030 or whatever,  legislation can push tech evolution,  but it cant dictate it,  and at some point they have to consider what the working person can afford,  we are already seeing inflation pushing costs for younger families into ridiculous heights.  I have a coworker that just got notice that his daycare is taking a 16% annual increase starting August 1st,  that is a huge pill for a young family to bear,  the auto industry has to have a market for all these new innovations or they are all just a waste of time.

I think there’s a lot of room for discussion on how EV’s play
into the WEF’s plan for “You will own nothing and be happy”.  You touched on one of the side aspects of the
EV conversation, which is the economics of it. 
EV’s up until now have been mostly premium, expensive products.  A lot of this country needs cheap cars for
transportation, like not just “cheap” new vehicles, but cheap as in sub $5K and
sub $10K used vehicles.  How far out are
we from a solid used car market for sub $10k EVs?  I think the end goal though is to use self-driving
vehicles to remove most people from owning their own vehicle, so as they make
the “old high polluting vehicles” illegal to own, and the new

“clean” vehicles are all super expensive, the only real option for the poor is to
move to some sort of car sharing situation, which like everything else in this
modern world, will start out as cheap and feels like it makes sense, and then
10 years later after you’re locked into the system the prices will skyrocket.

While I don’t hate car-sharing systems in principal as there’s
a lot of benefits, I think there’s a lot of room for this corporation-government
oligarchy we have to exploit common people.

One thing that is often left out of the equation is that
much of the carbon used for cars is in the initial construction of the vehicles,
but a lot of the conversation revolves around new this, new that and people
aren’t really doing the carbon math on whether it makes carbon sense for you to
keep driving your already existing vehicle longer and making minor repairs or
if you need to go buy that newly manufactured vehicle with it’s high carbon
deficit, but lower per mile carbon usage. 
Part of that is just EV’s have been mostly for early adopters so far,
but we’ll need to have that discussion as we move forward with adoption.

Yet no one cares about the subsidies we have given (and still give) to oil, gas, coal companies for centuries.

@"Waterboy" said: Outside of China controlling a vast majority of the world's Lithium due in part to Hillary's wheeling and dealing, this is wonderful news.  I guess it's also acceptable that the emissions really aren't cut very much due to the pollution taking place on the front end as the electricity is produced.  But to avoid that, we're going to do it on a power grid that not only will require exponentially more capacity, but it will be consistently down due to weather fluctuations that prevent the grid from being full when the sources are solar and wind.  And when the cars get stuck due to weather and all the batteries die, it gets even better.   This has all been very well thought out and is really really great news. lol  

@"minny65" said: Yet no one cares about the subsidies we have given (and still give) to oil, gas, coal companies for centuries.

honestly,  I wouldnt have as much of an issue with wind subsidies if they would build the wind towers where the power is needed,  we have a huge infrastructure issue in this country,  but a lot of it is directly related to NIMBY,  things like refineries, and electrical generation get pushed into rural areas where people cant yell loud enough to prevent them from being built.  but then we need to turn around and build bigger and longer transmission lines and pipelines to get the product to where the bulk of it is consumed.  Why are we not focusing the solutions and money where the problems lie?  Why is Exel building wind farms in SD,  200 miles from where that power is needed in the MN metro areas?  We dont use the power out here,  so why do we have wind towers out here?  lots of excuses why, but what it boils down to is NIMBY,  everybody wants a pork chop,  but nobody wants to help cut up the hog.  in fairness,  those federally funded wind towers are paying taxes and are helping my local area ( my township receives an additional 80K per year in funding due to the wind towers we have in our back yard )  but they have also created new issues like more road use due to construction and future maintenance considerations,  but they are paying local taxes to some extent.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"minny65" said: Yet no one cares about the subsidies we have given (and still give) to oil, gas, coal companies for centuries.

what about them?  nobody was talking about oil or gas,  the subject has been EVs and their viability.    as far as fossil fuels,  they are reported to generate roughly 140 billion per year in taxes in the US,  they receive about 5 billion in subsidies ( per 2016 data... its what I found quick on Wiki )  I dont think we should be subsidizing either,  but as long as we are,  this one is acceptable          ( maybe less disgusting is a better way to put it) IMO as it more than pays for itself in returned income.   

honestly,  I wouldnt have as much of an issue with wind subsidies if they would build the wind towers where the power is needed,  we have a huge infrastructure issue in this country,  but a lot of it is directly related to NIMBY,  things like refineries, and electrical generation get pushed into rural areas where people cant yell loud enough to prevent them from being built.  but then we need to turn around and build bigger and longer transmission lines and pipelines to get the product to where the bulk of it is consumed.  Why are we not focusing the solutions and money where the problems lie?  Why is Exel building wind farms in SD,  200 miles from where that power is needed in the MN metro areas?  We dont use the power out here,  so why do we have wind towers out here?  lots of excuses why, but what it boils down to is NIMBY,  everybody wants a pork chop,  but nobody wants to help cut up the hog.  in fairness,  those federally funded wind towers are paying taxes and are helping my local area ( my township receives an additional 80K per year in funding due to the wind towers we have in our back yard )  but they have also created new issues like more road use due to construction and future maintenance considerations,  but they are paying local taxes to some extent.

@"minny65" said: Yet no one cares about the subsidies we have given (and still give) to oil, gas, coal companies for centuries.

@"minny65" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"minny65" said: Yet no one cares about the subsidies we have given (and still give) to oil, gas, coal companies for centuries.

what about them?  nobody was talking about oil or gas,  the subject has been EVs and their viability.    as far as fossil fuels,  they are reported to generate roughly 140 billion per year in taxes in the US,  they receive about 5 billion in subsidies ( per 2016 data... its what I found quick on Wiki )  I dont think we should be subsidizing either,  but as long as we are,  this one is acceptable          ( maybe less disgusting is a better way to put it) IMO as it more than pays for itself in returned income.   

honestly,  I wouldnt have as much of an issue with wind subsidies if they would build the wind towers where the power is needed,  we have a huge infrastructure issue in this country,  but a lot of it is directly related to NIMBY,  things like refineries, and electrical generation get pushed into rural areas where people cant yell loud enough to prevent them from being built.  but then we need to turn around and build bigger and longer transmission lines and pipelines to get the product to where the bulk of it is consumed.  Why are we not focusing the solutions and money where the problems lie?  Why is Exel building wind farms in SD,  200 miles from where that power is needed in the MN metro areas?  We dont use the power out here,  so why do we have wind towers out here?  lots of excuses why, but what it boils down to is NIMBY,  everybody wants a pork chop,  but nobody wants to help cut up the hog.  in fairness,  those federally funded wind towers are paying taxes and are helping my local area ( my township receives an additional 80K per year in funding due to the wind towers we have in our back yard )  but they have also created new issues like more road use due to construction and future maintenance considerations,  but they are paying local taxes to some extent.

OK, we disagree.  I don't think we should subsidize the most profitable industry in history after over 100 years of formation.  I will feel the same if EV takes off and 100 years later still has it's hand out.  

Not a fan of subsidies. 
I think people should choose which industries they want to personally
subsidize, rather than the government taking their money and deciding to give
their money to megacorporations that their friends and donors control.

If we’ve already decided on the government subsidizing
something, I would prefer they invest in things that lift up the people rather
than increasing corporate profits for companies that try to extend their own power
over the people.  I think investing in
personal solar panel installations is a huge win for both the left and right,
as it increases green energy, but also makes more people independent of power
company shenanigans and makes them a producer and not a consumer.  I don’t have much beef with our local power
providers, but you look at what can go wrong like in California, Texas, or
South Africa.

Subsidies should encourage distributed production where the
producers compete in a free market.  It
shouldn’t just get dumped into too-big-to-fail corporations.

@"medaille" said: Not a fan of subsidies.  I think people should choose which industries they want to personally subsidize, rather than the government taking their money and deciding to give their money to megacorporations that their friends and donors control.

If we’ve already decided on the government subsidizing
something, I would prefer they invest in things that lift up the people rather
than increasing corporate profits for companies that try to extend their own power
over the people.  I think investing in
personal solar panel installations is a huge win for both the left and right,
as it increases green energy, but also makes more people independent of power
company shenanigans and makes them a producer and not a consumer.  I don’t have much beef with our local power
providers, but you look at what can go wrong like in California, Texas, or
South Africa.

Subsidies should encourage distributed production where the
producers compete in a free market.  It
shouldn’t just get dumped into too-big-to-fail corporations.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"medaille" said: Not a fan of subsidies.  I think people should choose which industries they want to personally subsidize, rather than the government taking their money and deciding to give their money to megacorporations that their friends and donors control.

If we’ve already decided on the government subsidizing
something, I would prefer they invest in things that lift up the people rather
than increasing corporate profits for companies that try to extend their own power
over the people.  I think investing in
personal solar panel installations is a huge win for both the left and right,
as it increases green energy, but also makes more people independent of power
company shenanigans and makes them a producer and not a consumer.  I don’t have much beef with our local power
providers, but you look at what can go wrong like in California, Texas, or
South Africa.

Subsidies should encourage distributed production where the
producers compete in a free market.  It
shouldn’t just get dumped into too-big-to-fail corporations.

problem is,  you still need a local power provider for when you are not generating enough of your own power,  and the less you and your solar neighbors are buying,  the less money they are making and it still costs them the same to maintain their part of the power grid.  The only way I say solar or wind should be subsidized is if a location is 100% off grid and it makes more sense to keep it that way than to try and get them grid power,  otherwise its just going to make everyone's base energy costs go up since the utilities wont have the profit from the KW sold to offset their operating costs.

@"StickyBun" said: Plus, the roadside assistance angle: EV's wheels lock up when not running so any vehicle that shits the bed on the roadside will require a flatbed tow. And for the EV-only manufacturers that could be a LONG haul back to a service center compared to a dealership (most EV-only manufacturers have limited dealerships or none at all). $$$

I know my 2014 Model S has a tow mode and I just used a couple weeks ago to roll onto a tow flatbed (as you point out).  Does anyone tow without a flatbed anymore?  I had a couple problems a few years back with a Ford Tauras and every time I called for a tow (maybe 3 times) a flatbed arrived.  
Your other point is an issue.  The closest Tesla service center is 105 miles from me.  They will send out a "ranger" if it is something they can fix at your home but I needed a tow.  Thank goodness for AAA.  They covered up to 100 miles so my cost was minimal (turnpike tolls were more).  Within that month my daughter locked her keys in the car.  Then she needed a new battery delivered on site.  Separate subject but I am a huge fan of AAA for the family with 4 drivers, 4 cars :)

I notice everyone assumes that someone who buys a EV is earthy crunchy and wants to save the world from the carbon monsters:)  Not me and others I have spoken with who own Tesla's.  They are awesome cars.  If you test drive they are amazing.  The acceleration is second to none and I like the looks of my Model S (British racing Green).  I love the way it drives, the tech, and of course saving money on gas.  Lastly, I don't mind giving the oil/gas companies a little competition for once.

@"medaille" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"medaille" said: Not a fan of subsidies.  I think people should choose which industries they want to personally subsidize, rather than the government taking their money and deciding to give their money to megacorporations that their friends and donors control.

If we’ve already decided on the government subsidizing
something, I would prefer they invest in things that lift up the people rather
than increasing corporate profits for companies that try to extend their own power
over the people.  I think investing in
personal solar panel installations is a huge win for both the left and right,
as it increases green energy, but also makes more people independent of power
company shenanigans and makes them a producer and not a consumer.  I don’t have much beef with our local power
providers, but you look at what can go wrong like in California, Texas, or
South Africa.

Subsidies should encourage distributed production where the
producers compete in a free market.  It
shouldn’t just get dumped into too-big-to-fail corporations.

problem is,  you still need a local power provider for when you are not generating enough of your own power,  and the less you and your solar neighbors are buying,  the less money they are making and it still costs them the same to maintain their part of the power grid.  The only way I say solar or wind should be subsidized is if a location is 100% off grid and it makes more sense to keep it that way than to try and get them grid power,  otherwise its just going to make everyone's base energy costs go up since the utilities wont have the profit from the KW sold to offset their operating costs.

I totally agree with you those are side effects of energy
independence.  But that said, I think the
people of the US desperately need to ensure that the things they depend on for
survival are within their own control and not leveraged against them.  Green energy is coming.  Power plants are going to be shut down
regardless and replaced with solar and wind. 
I think at this point, the choice is do you want to own them or do you
want the utility company to own them.  I
do think there’s going to be a cost for maintaining the grid, and that should
be relatively stable and predictable, but regardless on whether you or the
company own the solar panels, some percentage of natural gas or nuclear plants
will have to be maintained and run at partial capacity.

I don’t think the option of just running with natural gas
plants is an option in this political climate. 
I do like the idea of separating grid maintenance and power production.  I think having one monopoly that is too big
to replace if they are underserving or overcharging their customers is ripe for
corruption.  I think having multiple
providers for both grid maintenance and power generation is the best way for
ensuring low prices and higher quality through competition in the market.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"medaille" said:

...

...

if you want lower prices,  then get rid of the green mandates,  our power costs have about tripled since they started mandating that our REA buy "green" power.  What sucks is we are already paying for mandated upgrades to the coal generation plant that made it in compliance with current emission standards,  but now we have to pay for a % of higher priced power as well.  The homeowner stuff isnt as critical on my utility as they have a policy here that they only have to pay at their wholesale rate, not the rate they charge so the incentives arent as great around me that would have a lot of people jumping on their own generation,  however in those areas that require the utility to buy excess at their service rate,  they are struggling to make it work,  because when you are making excess,  so is everyone else that has jumped on the green rebate train and suddenly nobody wants to buy power at those times,  but when you  arent making your solar power,  then they are going to have to charge everyone a shit load more.  I just dont see a good way to do a hybrid public/private electrical utility that is trying to do it largely with green solutions,  or really any solution that has an uncontrolled output until battery tech comes along.

@"medaille" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"medaille" said:

...

...

if you want lower prices,  then get rid of the green mandates,  our power costs have about tripled since they started mandating that our REA buy "green" power.  What sucks is we are already paying for mandated upgrades to the coal generation plant that made it in compliance with current emission standards,  but now we have to pay for a % of higher priced power as well.  The homeowner stuff isnt as critical on my utility as they have a policy here that they only have to pay at their wholesale rate, not the rate they charge so the incentives arent as great around me that would have a lot of people jumping on their own generation,  however in those areas that require the utility to buy excess at their service rate,  they are struggling to make it work,  because when you are making excess,  so is everyone else that has jumped on the green rebate train and suddenly nobody wants to buy power at those times,  but when you  arent making your solar power,  then they are going to have to charge everyone a shit load more.  I just dont see a good way to do a hybrid public/private electrical utility that is trying to do it largely with green solutions,  or really any solution that has an uncontrolled output until battery tech comes along.

I think the argument you would get would be something like, “Maybe
you need to pay more for electricity to not destroy the planet for our children?”  What would your response be to that?

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"StickyBun" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: I'm surprised they didnt get Ford and Volkswagen Motor Group on board.

That said, you are still going to need to charge at home minimally some of the time. Thats true for houses, townhomes, condos and rental apts. That is a big undertaking too - will take years to build that part of the infrastructure. 

For the forseeable future, I would find it impossible to own an EV here in the midwest w/out a level 2 in our garage. 

But this is still a big deal and the world cannot rely on Tesla Supercharger network alone

Many EVs come with a Level 1 trickle charger that does about 3-5 miles of range per hour (horrible) but there are subsidies both nationally and locally to have a Level 2 EV charger in your home. Even your local utility might have one for sale via them. You do need it either hardwired (best and safest) or a 240 outlet in your garage for it. The vast majority of people only travel 40 miles a day with their vehicles. 5 states have 85% of the EV market so a long way to go. Some car manufacturers (like Ford) include a nice Level 2 EV charger with a limited assortment of their vehicles. The issue is its really expensive to put in the wiring for an EV charger to many existing residences. 

The issue right now for EV manufacturers is: they have a ton of stock. 

It can be expensive, especially if you need a whole, new electrical box. Then you are looking at 5 figures easy. 

Most of my clients are spending about $1500-$2k to get a 240 plumbed into their garage; add $699 for a juice box off of amazon or from auto mfgr on top if it. 

Now the electricity suppliers are getting in on it too - Excel is big up here and they'll plumb a 240 in and let you rent the level 2 box. Program it to charge from 12:01 am to 559 am - when kWh are least expensive. 

@"Zanary" said: I think this group is responding to the Ford alliance with Tesla, which likely will also encompass the VW/Audi group as well as Nissan, who seemed to be working its own deal as of last week.

@"AGRforever" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"StickyBun" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: I'm surprised they didnt get Ford and Volkswagen Motor Group on board.

That said, you are still going to need to charge at home minimally some of the time. Thats true for houses, townhomes, condos and rental apts. That is a big undertaking too - will take years to build that part of the infrastructure. 

For the forseeable future, I would find it impossible to own an EV here in the midwest w/out a level 2 in our garage. 

But this is still a big deal and the world cannot rely on Tesla Supercharger network alone

Many EVs come with a Level 1 trickle charger that does about 3-5 miles of range per hour (horrible) but there are subsidies both nationally and locally to have a Level 2 EV charger in your home. Even your local utility might have one for sale via them. You do need it either hardwired (best and safest) or a 240 outlet in your garage for it. The vast majority of people only travel 40 miles a day with their vehicles. 5 states have 85% of the EV market so a long way to go. Some car manufacturers (like Ford) include a nice Level 2 EV charger with a limited assortment of their vehicles. The issue is its really expensive to put in the wiring for an EV charger to many existing residences. 

The issue right now for EV manufacturers is: they have a ton of stock. 

It can be expensive, especially if you need a whole, new electrical box. Then you are looking at 5 figures easy. 

Most of my clients are spending about $1500-$2k to get a 240 plumbed into their garage; add $699 for a juice box off of amazon or from auto mfgr on top if it. 

Now the electricity suppliers are getting in on it too - Excel is big up here and they'll plumb a 240 in and let you rent the level 2 box. Program it to charge from 12:01 am to 559 am - when kWh are least expensive. 

My breaker box is in my garage.  Assuming its a standard plug it would just be the couple bucks a foot for the 10/3 or 8/3 depending on the amperage.  If you need to run a line very far you can sub panel using #2 aluminum.  Wouldn't be terrible on price.  

@"StickyBun" said:

@"AGRforever" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"StickyBun" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: I'm surprised they didnt get Ford and Volkswagen Motor Group on board.

That said, you are still going to need to charge at home minimally some of the time. Thats true for houses, townhomes, condos and rental apts. That is a big undertaking too - will take years to build that part of the infrastructure. 

For the forseeable future, I would find it impossible to own an EV here in the midwest w/out a level 2 in our garage. 

But this is still a big deal and the world cannot rely on Tesla Supercharger network alone

Many EVs come with a Level 1 trickle charger that does about 3-5 miles of range per hour (horrible) but there are subsidies both nationally and locally to have a Level 2 EV charger in your home. Even your local utility might have one for sale via them. You do need it either hardwired (best and safest) or a 240 outlet in your garage for it. The vast majority of people only travel 40 miles a day with their vehicles. 5 states have 85% of the EV market so a long way to go. Some car manufacturers (like Ford) include a nice Level 2 EV charger with a limited assortment of their vehicles. The issue is its really expensive to put in the wiring for an EV charger to many existing residences. 

The issue right now for EV manufacturers is: they have a ton of stock. 

It can be expensive, especially if you need a whole, new electrical box. Then you are looking at 5 figures easy. 

Most of my clients are spending about $1500-$2k to get a 240 plumbed into their garage; add $699 for a juice box off of amazon or from auto mfgr on top if it. 

Now the electricity suppliers are getting in on it too - Excel is big up here and they'll plumb a 240 in and let you rent the level 2 box. Program it to charge from 12:01 am to 559 am - when kWh are least expensive. 

My breaker box is in my garage.  Assuming its a standard plug it would just be the couple bucks a foot for the 10/3 or 8/3 depending on the amperage.  If you need to run a line very far you can sub panel using #2 aluminum.  Wouldn't be terrible on price.  

You'll need at least a 80 amp breaker to get you the full level 2 charge from a residential EV charger. You can certainly use something less than that but you will also get less AC to your EV. 

And the EV charger is a bit of a misnomer, it doesn't 'charge' anything.....the car has the charger. You're just supplying the AC.