4 ms·

the US doesn't have the energy infrastructure to have everyone jump on EVs anytime soon

by jdmg94 4y ago

polytely 4y ago
But everyone jumping to EV would increase pressure to upgrade infrastructure, which is probably a good thing.
- fwungy 4y ago
  Only if the majority populations of the world in developing countries follow along. The major oil producing nations are not going to stop selling oil though, they depend on it to survive, and likewise developing nations depend on petroleum products to feed themselves and operate their businesses. They can't afford to transition in any timespan that matters for a critical climate change scenario. What we're on course to do in the West is destroy our economies for no reason as carbon usage will just move elsewhere. In the process we will lose our ability to lead to cleaner technologies by destroying our financial base.
  - breakyerself 4y ago
    Lmao our economy will not be destroyed. It won't even be hampered. This is nonsense.
    - fwungy 4y ago
      Have you noticed how much things cost lately? Have you noticed the decline in the stock market? The US made a hard turn towards green energy the day Biden got into office. He shut down the Keystone Pipeline on day 1, and has been running an aggressively anti-oil energy policy, which the EU is following as well. This has caused inflation to spread across the supply chain as input costs have drastically increased. Oil products are vital for food production too, so it's affecting that as well. This isn't just an update to a basically disposable cell phone, these policy changes have huge impacts, such that we can't even fully know ahead of time the unintended consequences.
  - mcv 4y ago
    Why would it destroy our economy if carbon use moves elsewhere? Carbon use is not a goal, it's merely the means by which we currently generate most of our energy. If we replace the means by which we generate our energy, we don't need carbon anymore. The fact that others haven't made that transition yet doesn't hurt us. Quite the contrary: the fact that we made that transition will make it easier for them to make the same transition. And the US definitely needs to be first. The US uses far more carbon per person than any other country; even more than Europe. Developing countries are not remotely in the same order of magnitude. Having the US and EU transition to cleaner energy will be a massive boon to the world, even if nobody else follows suit. But the US and EU figuring out all the issues of this transition will make it easier for other countries to make that transition too, and it will put more pressure on them to do so. The US is really not the country that should wait for others to go first here. Take the lead.
    - fwungy 4y ago
      Because it makes everything cost a lot more money. Your industry is not competitive and it declines. Other countries move ahead and exploit your weakness for their advantage. No one is saying green technologies are bad, they aren't. The question is the scope. If we ask them to do something they're not technologically and economically ready to do they're going to fail.
      - mcv 4y ago
        That's doom thinking that's just going to lead to doubt and inaction. Green technologies can absolutely become competitive, and in many cases already are. On top of that, there's a lot more to industrial competition than just where your energy comes from. There are a lot of countries with very cheap energy that are not dominating the world in industry. And there are countries with expensive energy that are.
pornel 4y ago
US drives 3.4T vehicle-miles per year[1]. At 3mi/kWh (which is low for an EV), that needs 1133TWh total electricity per year. Last year the US grid produced 4108TWh[2]. So to accommodate all that extra need, the production needs to grow by about 27%. Not all cars are replaced right away, so this can be a growth of a few % per year. [1] https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/
- ianai 4y ago
  It’s good to just do the math for how much driving equates to how much electricity per day. At 3 miles per kwh it’s about 0.33 kwh per mile. EVs cars charge at 3.3-6.6 kWh per hour or 9.9-19.8 miles per hour with that efficiency. Further, that charge rate could be reduced if it’s too much for the line, theoretically, if things were smart. Edit-I figure in a perfect universe we’d have chargers at every likely to be used parking spot and they’d charge in accordance to power availability and the duration a person is likely to be there. So at work you’d plug in, the charger would know you’ll be there for a considerable amount of time, and maybe you wouldn’t get 6.6 kWh the whole duration but you’ll wind up at 80% (or whatever you requested) by the end of the shift. Similar with apartments. Costco or big box stores would assume you’d be there for 1-2 hours and would offer faster charging for those coming in from greater distances. Etc. it’s not impossible. This could ameliorate generation changes over time. Apartment complexes and residentials could use this instead of on-site batteries to make use of their solar generation.
  - pornel 4y ago
    You speak in hypotheticals, but these things already exist. I often charge my car while shopping. The grid already handles high peaks. There's plenty of unused capacity outside of the 6pm-10pm peak of the Duck Curve. Cars support scheduling charging, so even if you come home at 6pm and want to plug in without thinking about it, you can (and note that a modern BEV used for commuting needs to be plugged only once a week). If you charge at work, it's even better, because that's at the bottom of the Duck Curve when you could almost get paid to get the electricity off the grid. Fast DC charging sites often already have large battery storage built-in, because it's already more profitable to use lower-power grid connection and/or off-peak electricity.
mcv 4y ago
Some US states (Texas!) don't even have the energy infrastructure to keep all houses warm and lit during winter. But that's something that a more responsible government could invest in. Don't complain that it can't be done, but vote for a government that will do it.

the US doesn't have the energy infrastructure to have everyone jump on EVs anytime soon

by jdmg94 4y ago

the US doesn't have the energy infrastructure to have everyone jump on EVs anytime soon

polytely 4y ago

But everyone jumping to EV would increase pressure to upgrade infrastructure, which is probably a good thing.

fwungy 4y ago
Only if the majority populations of the world in developing countries follow along. The major oil producing nations are not going to stop selling oil though, they depend on it to survive, and likewise developing nations depend on petroleum products to feed themselves and operate their businesses. They can't afford to transition in any timespan that matters for a critical climate change scenario. What we're on course to do in the West is destroy our economies for no reason as carbon usage will just move elsewhere. In the process we will lose our ability to lead to cleaner technologies by destroying our financial base.
- breakyerself 4y ago
  Lmao our economy will not be destroyed. It won't even be hampered. This is nonsense.
  - fwungy 4y ago
    Have you noticed how much things cost lately? Have you noticed the decline in the stock market? The US made a hard turn towards green energy the day Biden got into office. He shut down the Keystone Pipeline on day 1, and has been running an aggressively anti-oil energy policy, which the EU is following as well. This has caused inflation to spread across the supply chain as input costs have drastically increased. Oil products are vital for food production too, so it's affecting that as well. This isn't just an update to a basically disposable cell phone, these policy changes have huge impacts, such that we can't even fully know ahead of time the unintended consequences.
- mcv 4y ago
  Why would it destroy our economy if carbon use moves elsewhere? Carbon use is not a goal, it's merely the means by which we currently generate most of our energy. If we replace the means by which we generate our energy, we don't need carbon anymore. The fact that others haven't made that transition yet doesn't hurt us. Quite the contrary: the fact that we made that transition will make it easier for them to make the same transition. And the US definitely needs to be first. The US uses far more carbon per person than any other country; even more than Europe. Developing countries are not remotely in the same order of magnitude. Having the US and EU transition to cleaner energy will be a massive boon to the world, even if nobody else follows suit. But the US and EU figuring out all the issues of this transition will make it easier for other countries to make that transition too, and it will put more pressure on them to do so. The US is really not the country that should wait for others to go first here. Take the lead.
  - fwungy 4y ago
    Because it makes everything cost a lot more money. Your industry is not competitive and it declines. Other countries move ahead and exploit your weakness for their advantage. No one is saying green technologies are bad, they aren't. The question is the scope. If we ask them to do something they're not technologically and economically ready to do they're going to fail.
    - mcv 4y ago
      That's doom thinking that's just going to lead to doubt and inaction. Green technologies can absolutely become competitive, and in many cases already are. On top of that, there's a lot more to industrial competition than just where your energy comes from. There are a lot of countries with very cheap energy that are not dominating the world in industry. And there are countries with expensive energy that are.

pornel 4y ago

US drives 3.4T vehicle-miles per year[1]. At 3mi/kWh (which is low for an EV), that needs 1133TWh total electricity per year. Last year the US grid produced 4108TWh[2]. So to accommodate all that extra need, the production needs to grow by about 27%. Not all cars are replaced right away, so this can be a growth of a few % per year. [1] https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/

ianai 4y ago
It’s good to just do the math for how much driving equates to how much electricity per day. At 3 miles per kwh it’s about 0.33 kwh per mile. EVs cars charge at 3.3-6.6 kWh per hour or 9.9-19.8 miles per hour with that efficiency. Further, that charge rate could be reduced if it’s too much for the line, theoretically, if things were smart. Edit-I figure in a perfect universe we’d have chargers at every likely to be used parking spot and they’d charge in accordance to power availability and the duration a person is likely to be there. So at work you’d plug in, the charger would know you’ll be there for a considerable amount of time, and maybe you wouldn’t get 6.6 kWh the whole duration but you’ll wind up at 80% (or whatever you requested) by the end of the shift. Similar with apartments. Costco or big box stores would assume you’d be there for 1-2 hours and would offer faster charging for those coming in from greater distances. Etc. it’s not impossible. This could ameliorate generation changes over time. Apartment complexes and residentials could use this instead of on-site batteries to make use of their solar generation.
- pornel 4y ago
  You speak in hypotheticals, but these things already exist. I often charge my car while shopping. The grid already handles high peaks. There's plenty of unused capacity outside of the 6pm-10pm peak of the Duck Curve. Cars support scheduling charging, so even if you come home at 6pm and want to plug in without thinking about it, you can (and note that a modern BEV used for commuting needs to be plugged only once a week). If you charge at work, it's even better, because that's at the bottom of the Duck Curve when you could almost get paid to get the electricity off the grid. Fast DC charging sites often already have large battery storage built-in, because it's already more profitable to use lower-power grid connection and/or off-peak electricity.

mcv 4y ago

Some US states (Texas!) don't even have the energy infrastructure to keep all houses warm and lit during winter. But that's something that a more responsible government could invest in. Don't complain that it can't be done, but vote for a government that will do it.