See this is the thinking that's dangerous about this stuff.
"Things changed before, they can change now. Let's not bother to plan anything at all."
See this is the thinking that's dangerous about this stuff.What ever will happen to livery stables? The elevator operators? The telephone switch operators?
If everyone in America swapped their cars for electric today what is the power that those batteries would pull from the grid overnight?
Can the grid stand up to that? Is there the energy generation capacity to supply that need?
Florida in the summertime, everyone running their air conditioning and charging their cars all night.It's probably underapprecated that there is a ton of slack in the existing grid off peak. Since cars will mostly charge off peak enormous upgrades won't be needed for a while.
I dunno. I very much don't trust the people who make decisions that actually implement change listen to the people who know what actually needs to be done.
In short politicians think in the short term.
The bigger issue for me is range anxiety which still exists without some very clunky overhead (total battery swaps instead of charging for example). The current fast charge is 44 miles for an hour charge top off. That's simply not viable for anyone that wants to use their primary vehicle for a long distance trip.
Any infrastructure change this big will need cooperation from government.Most of the decisions around this are not in the hands of Politicians.
Any infrastructure change this big will need cooperation from government.
Of course planning needs to be done. To meet the demands of the future our infrastructure needs an overhaul.See this is the thinking that's dangerous about this stuff.
"Things changed before, they can change now. Let's not bother to plan anything at all."
Well thats what I was asking for!Of course planning needs to be done. To meet the demands of the future our infrastructure needs an overhaul.
I'd absolutely love to get off fossil fuels as a nation but I'd like someone to lay out a clear and costed plan on how to get there first. And that's absolutely not happening.
Sorry, the 44 miles per hour rate was quoted by Telsa, but it's for the wall charger. Not the high speed ones. So yeah, there is an option for faster charging but still depend on infrastructure there to support it.
US consumes ~14 quadrillion BTU of electricity currently, (generated from total of ~39 quadrillion BTU of primary energy before losses)I'd like figures though. How much power is available now, how much would be needed.
If solar then what sized solar generation would be needed, and how big would the battery capacity be to supply a nation as huge and power hungry as America?
I get that I should look these figures up myself but I'm tired and feeling pretty ill right now. I'll use my googlefu later.
You forgot that most fueled transportation uses internal combustion, which is only about 1/3 efficient. So, only about a 67% increase, very roughly, is needed.US consumes ~14 quadrillion BTU of electricity currently, (generated from total of ~39 quadrillion BTU of primary energy before losses)
US Transportation, in all forms, consumes ~28 quadrillion BTU of energy. With only about 0.2% of this currently from electricity ~ basically none.
So to replace all US forms of transportation (28 quadrillion BTU worth) with electric vehicles would require tripling the amount of power generation in the US - and also tripling transmission capabilities unless the new power was generated locally. Note this is far more than just electric cars, but assuming electrifying the entire US transportation sector.
Back of the envelope, about a $9 trillion investment (which obviously would have to be phased in over many years), note this is in addition to the normal business-as-usual investments to meet power demand growth and replacement of retiring assets - of about $130+ billion/year or so. So would need to increase investment in the power sector by a factor of 5x, over period of 15 years, to reach this target as a simplified example estimate.
Basis: current US investor-owned electric utilities hold more than $1.6 trillion in depreciated assets on their books, which makes up about 70% of US generation, so call it $2.3 trillion total current assets for the power market as a whole. With quick assumption that on average these are about half depreciated = $4.6 trillion of assets at replacement cost, or to triple the market, need to add $9.2 trillion of new investment as a very simple rough approximation.
.IndustryData
www.eei.org
I imagine incentives may be needed to get businesses to set up charging stations for workers. Then everybody plugs in while they work, and while the sun is shining. Remember, solar is now the cheapest power.Its going to be a massive cluster fuck no matter how much people try to make it work.
Even if everyone has access to a charging outlet its going to create massive issues.
Population of America knocks of work and drives home. Population off America plugs their cars in. *LIGHTS GO OFF*
OR it presents an opportunity to create the necessary infra structure and the jobs associated with that effort. Also if tenants want electric cars and that becomes a factor driving where they rent then land lords will address that need.
Will it? Thats the sort of assumption that ends up with all the lights going off.
Edit: Or the sudden need to quickly build whatever dirty power stations that can be brought into commission in the very short term because no one asked any hard questions before.
US consumes ~14 quadrillion BTU of electricity currently, (generated from total of ~39 quadrillion BTU of primary energy before losses)
US Transportation, in all forms, consumes ~28 quadrillion BTU of energy. With only about 0.2% of this currently from electricity ~ basically none.
So to replace all US forms of transportation (28 quadrillion BTU worth) with electric vehicles would require tripling the amount of power generation in the US - and also tripling transmission capabilities unless the new power was generated locally. Note this is far more than just electric cars, but assuming electrifying the entire US transportation sector.
Back of the envelope, about a $9 trillion investment (which obviously would have to be phased in over many years), note this is in addition to the normal business-as-usual investments to meet power demand growth and replacement of retiring assets - of about $130+ billion/year or so. So would need to increase investment in the power sector by a factor of 5x, over period of 15 years, to reach this target as a simplified example estimate.
Basis: current US investor-owned electric utilities hold more than $1.6 trillion in depreciated assets on their books, which makes up about 70% of US generation, so call it $2.3 trillion total current assets for the power market as a whole. With quick assumption that on average these are about half depreciated = $4.6 trillion of assets at replacement cost, or to triple the market, need to add $9.2 trillion of new investment as a very simple rough approximation.
.IndustryData
www.eei.org
Dave_5K also assumed that 100% replacement was happening at 2035. That is absolutely not the case, that is just the point at which GM stops selling ICE passenger cars and trucks. The actual transition timeframe would depend on if all automakers follow GM's approach and the rate at which ICE vehicles are replaced. Realistically you're talking about 2045 at the earliest to need to support a fully electrified fleet.You forgot that most fueled transportation uses internal combustion, which is only about 1/3 efficient. So, only about a 67% increase, very roughly, is needed.
I imagine incentives may be needed to get businesses to set up charging stations for workers. Then everybody plugs in while they work, and while the sun is shining. Remember, solar is now the cheapest power.
I imagine, in the worst case (where batteries are expensive and utilities won't let businesses send solar power onto the grid) that businesses might set up solar panels, connected directly to electric car chargers, and only charge the cars when there's enough sunlight.
TBF he was answering the question that I asked!Dave_5K also assumed that 100% replacement was happening at 2035.
Well thats what I was asking for!
I'm not sure that horse buggies is relevant to that question at all!
Not owning a car. Think about it. Not having to own a car. When I lived in Chicago, the luckiest deal I ran across was garage rental in the back of my apartment for 35$ a month (1975). That city has great infrastructure (The L). The car was barely used. Imagine getting shit faced at Wrigley Field and stumbling your way onto the magic carpet that let you off a block and a half from your abode. Ah, wasted youth.It also doesn't really necessitate much of a need for that kind of infrastructure if, and especially in big metro areas where this will most likely be the actual paradigm, car ownership more or less disappears and it becomes an automated, monthly subscription service.
call car. car arrives, takes you to gig, drives itself to hub for charge, picks up next owner, repeat. You actually need less charging infrastructure and far, far far less parking infrastructure. This is a really huge deal. ....obviously that's two big, relatively independent paradigm shifts (electric and automation), but they are now irrevocably tied together, anyway.
Just imagine what cities would look like with even 20% less space devoted to parking (likely way less). you could have those...what are they called? parks? trees? racquetball courts, homeless shelters, free abortion clinics! What an amazingly freedom-filled utopia! I can't wait!
I used to work for a guy who sold the parking space associated with his condo in DC separately from the condo for $30K back in 2006.Not owning a car. Think about it. Not having to own a car. When I lived in Chicago, the luckiest deal I ran across was garage rental in the back of my apartment for 35$ a month (1975). That city has great infrastructure (The L). The car was barely used. Imagine getting shit faced at Wrigley Field and stumbling your way onto the magic carpet that let you off a block and a half from your abode. Ah, wasted youth.
Not owning a car. Think about it. Not having to own a car. When I lived in Chicago, the luckiest deal I ran across was garage rental in the back of my apartment for 35$ a month (1975). That city has great infrastructure (The L). The car was barely used. Imagine getting shit faced at Wrigley Field and stumbling your way onto the magic carpet that let you off a block and a half from your abode. Ah, wasted youth.
I used to work for a guy who sold the parking space associated with his condo in DC separately from the condo for $30K back in 2006.
Deeded parking spaces for condos are pretty common in cities.
Eventually, at least one or 2 of your parking light lenses are cracked, sometimes by your own doing. That's why the garage deal was the only way to go.I had a car there for 3 years. After the first 2 years of blissfully not owning a car. (it was given to me...almost sorta against my will, haha). ...I quickly forgot that I had that car. street parking was such a nightmare. an hours-long ordeal that often saw me parking about 3 or 4 neighborhoods away and taking the El or a cab to get back to my apartment. It gets to the point that you generally do not use your car because the hassle of parking isn't worth it. I basically abandoned to thing to a season of snow, street sweeping, thievery...which ended up being a half a dozen tickets, a boot, and eventual impoundment after about 3 months, when I finally remembered that I should probably check on my car.
The nearest public garage was $20 for overnight parking. overnight, not all day. So, from 7am-7pm, everyone had to pay by the hour. Honestly, it should be that way. Owning cars in a densely populated city with limited space and generally every possible way to get to everywhere you would ever need to go by foot or cheaper PT should be heavily incentivized.