3 ms·

The average American drives 37 miles per day. EVs can travel 4 miles per kWH. That's 9.25 kWH required for the average American, every day. The average American

The average American drives 37 miles per day. EVs can travel 4 miles per kWH. That's 9.25 kWH required for the average American, every day. The average American household consume 30 kWH of power every day. You may think we need we therefore need a 33% increase in power generation just for every household to have a single EV, but that's not quite true. We need to factor in that residential electrical usage only comprises 40% of total electrical usage. That 33% increase suddenly becomes a 13.2% increase. Even that's not the whole picture because refining oil to make gasoline requires 5 kWH of power per gallon. Most of that power comes from burning oil, but 40% of it is coming off the grid. That's 2 kWH of power coming off the grid to refine that 1 gallon of gas. Since the average American drives 37 miles per day, we'll say they're consuming roughly 1.5 gallons of gas per day, which used 3 kWH of power from the grid to refine. If you work it all through you end up needing an 8% increase in generation to support every single US household having an EV (and it's an additional 8% for every additional EV). Sounds like a lot, right? No. There are vast differences in the demand for power from on-peak (during the day) and off-peak (during the evening) power. Vast enough that households can charge two EVs at night during the off-peak period and still not constrain the grid. Getting back to your question - what kind of power grid can supply electricity to a country full of EVs? The grid we already have.

thmsths 3y ago
This is a real eye opener, thank you for your comment. I always thought that grid upgrades for EVs were squarely in the "feasible" category so I always dismissed the "but what about the grid?" anti EV arguments. But I did not realize we were almost there already!
29athrowaway 3y ago
And the net reduction on pollution? zero Because by the time the EV left the dealership, it already polluted more.
- belltaco 3y ago
  Not true. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth2 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myt...
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  Yes, the carbon footprint of building an EV exceeds that of an ICE. Nobody at all disputes this. But over the life of the car, because they're not burning gasoline, the overall carbon footprint of an EV is lower. Even if your electricity comes from 100% coal, eventually the carbon footprint of the ICE will exceed the EV because burning coal at a massive scale to create electricity is more efficient than a small combustion engine, where well over half the energy is just waste heat. And if your electricity comes from 100% renewables, then the carbon footprint is merely the manufacturing and will be significantly lower over the life of the car.
  - 29athrowaway 3y ago
    Now ask yourself, how much of the pollution comes from cars? and does all the pollution comes from tailpipe emissions? There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes. And EVs still use those. Then, if gas lawn equipment like a mower or leaf blower pollutes more than several cars, then how much do you think the machines use in mining, agriculture, wood industry, etc. pollute? More than 90% of the pollution comes from that equipment. None of those use a catalytic converter. So even if you replace every car with an EV, the net pollution reduction will be marginal.
    - taylodl 3y ago
      > then how much do you think the machines use in mining, agriculture, wood industry, etc. pollute? Who cares? Are there millions of pieces of this equipment in our cities? No? EVs cut down on smog in cities. They also cut down on CO2 output. These are substantial wins.
    - belltaco 3y ago
      > There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes This is false. There is some pollution from brakes and tires but nowhere close to the pollution from tailpipes. Also regen braking reduces almost all the pollution from brakes.
    - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
      > There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes. Absolute hogwash. Where could you even get that idea? How much material is there in a set of tires that you will lose over the life of the tire? How many miles will it take to lose that material? Now consider how many hundreds of gallons of gas you will burn before those tires wear out. > So even if you replace every car with an EV, the net pollution reduction will be marginal. [0] According to the EPA, 29% of greenhouse gases emitted in the USA come from Transportation. Of that, only 58% of that comes from "Light-Duty Vehicles", ie, cars. That means if we replaced all cars with EVs, it would be ~17% reduction in GHG. Whether or not 17% is "marginal" is somewhat subjective on your definition of the word. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...

thmsths 3y ago

This is a real eye opener, thank you for your comment. I always thought that grid upgrades for EVs were squarely in the "feasible" category so I always dismissed the "but what about the grid?" anti EV arguments. But I did not realize we were almost there already!

29athrowaway 3y ago

And the net reduction on pollution? zero Because by the time the EV left the dealership, it already polluted more.

belltaco 3y ago
Not true. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth2 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myt...
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
Yes, the carbon footprint of building an EV exceeds that of an ICE. Nobody at all disputes this. But over the life of the car, because they're not burning gasoline, the overall carbon footprint of an EV is lower. Even if your electricity comes from 100% coal, eventually the carbon footprint of the ICE will exceed the EV because burning coal at a massive scale to create electricity is more efficient than a small combustion engine, where well over half the energy is just waste heat. And if your electricity comes from 100% renewables, then the carbon footprint is merely the manufacturing and will be significantly lower over the life of the car.
- 29athrowaway 3y ago
  Now ask yourself, how much of the pollution comes from cars? and does all the pollution comes from tailpipe emissions? There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes. And EVs still use those. Then, if gas lawn equipment like a mower or leaf blower pollutes more than several cars, then how much do you think the machines use in mining, agriculture, wood industry, etc. pollute? More than 90% of the pollution comes from that equipment. None of those use a catalytic converter. So even if you replace every car with an EV, the net pollution reduction will be marginal.
  - taylodl 3y ago
    > then how much do you think the machines use in mining, agriculture, wood industry, etc. pollute? Who cares? Are there millions of pieces of this equipment in our cities? No? EVs cut down on smog in cities. They also cut down on CO2 output. These are substantial wins.
  - belltaco 3y ago
    > There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes This is false. There is some pollution from brakes and tires but nowhere close to the pollution from tailpipes. Also regen braking reduces almost all the pollution from brakes.
  - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
    > There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes. Absolute hogwash. Where could you even get that idea? How much material is there in a set of tires that you will lose over the life of the tire? How many miles will it take to lose that material? Now consider how many hundreds of gallons of gas you will burn before those tires wear out. > So even if you replace every car with an EV, the net pollution reduction will be marginal. [0] According to the EPA, 29% of greenhouse gases emitted in the USA come from Transportation. Of that, only 58% of that comes from "Light-Duty Vehicles", ie, cars. That means if we replaced all cars with EVs, it would be ~17% reduction in GHG. Whether or not 17% is "marginal" is somewhat subjective on your definition of the word. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...