The $70 Million “Investment”

129
12211
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Electric cars continue to cost lots of money – contrary to the now-forgotten original point of the exercise, which was once upon a time to find a lower-cost alternative to gas-powered cars.

That’s gone away because gas is so cheap that – even with all the add-on taxes (about a fourth of the cost of each gallon) and the cost of regulatory mandates (such as the ethanol mandate) that have made fuel both more expensive and less efficient than it would otherwise be – finding a cheaper source of energy is going to take something spectacular, and battery power isn’t it.

That  inconvenient truth plus government subsidization of high-performance luxury-sport cars that happen to be battery-powered has perverted the incentives for electric car development away from economy and efficiency, neither of which are even discussed anymore – as if it doesn’t matter how much money is thrown on the EV bonfire, so long as the flames burn brighter and higher.

Which brings us to the $70 million “investment” Porsche is making in so-called “fast” chargers for the almost-here Taycan, the company’s first electric high-performance car.

The “fast” in quotes to make snarky about the abuse of language.

These chargers are indeed faster than charging up an EV via a household outlet – which takes half a day or overnight, depending on how flat-lined the battery is when you first plug it in.

But they are still paralytically slow vs. the time it takes to refuel say a 911 with gas.

These “fast” charger are also located at dealerships, which means having to go to the dealership – and then wait at the dealership – while your very quick but very long to get quick again Taycan gradually reboots itself.

Better hope there isn’t a line…

One of the many problems no one’s talking about with regard to this electric clusterfuck is recharge stall (or parking spot) throughput.

Unless Porsche – and everyone else guzzling the EV Kool Aid – is picturing  (and paying for, somehow) a vast field of electric car recharging stalls, the waiting will be multiplied because in addition to waiting for your electric Turducken to recharge, you’ll be waiting for the electric Turducken ahead of you in line to recharge.

It’s one thing when EVs are a curiosity, and there are just a handful of them in circulation – as is the case now.

Then, it’s enough to have say six spots for recharging at the dealership.

After you, kind sir!

No, please – after you!

But what happens when there are hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of EVs with wilting batteries looking for an umbilical at the same time?

Imagine a typical gas station, which usually has pumps enough for six or more cars to fill up at once – but instead of each car taking five minutes or less to do that, each sits at the pump for at least 30-45 minutes before the next car can get a turn.

That is a throughput problem.

And it ought to be alarming, if people thought about it – but to think about it, they’d need to be aware of it – and the people aren’t because no one’s telling them about it.

A 30-45 minute “fast” charge could easily end up being 2-3 hours, depending on whether you’re third or fourth in line. Hopefully, they will have a nice waiting room, with fast WiFi.

Or will each Porsche store – will every EV store – build out a recharging facility to accommodate the equivalent of the number of cars that stop at a gas station for a fill-up each day?

Every hour of the day?

If not, how does this work?

Without the country’s transportation system grinding to a halt – albeit silently (electric cars don’t grind)?

Never mind.

Porsche says the length of recharging will be reduced via 800 Volt chargers. Aber, that requires serious electrical work – most houses have 240V, max –  and so it isn’t going to happen at the household level absent building what amounts to a mini substation/transformer at each house. It is not too much of an exaggeration to state that what would be necessary would be not much different than installing underground tanks and high-volume fuel pumps at everyone’s house. And then sending a tanker truck out every so often to top off those tanks. Or maybe just run a line direct from the refinery.

Convenient, sure – but not cheap.

More money on the bonfire.

Porsche – which is part of the VWAudi combine – has had to don a very expensive hairshirt, its penance for “cheating” Uncle by building and selling efficient, affordable diesel-powered cars that didn’t have any of these gimps – but did “emit” a fraction of a percent more than the arbitrarily allowable percentage of certain exhaust byproducts.

Which is an unforgivable crime in the eyes of Uncle, far worse than harming anyone.

Never mind that the cars were functionally brilliant – some could go 700 miles on a tank and of course only needed a couple of minutes to refuel – and none required bonfires of other people’s money to keep them going.

They “cheated” – which is very much like characterizing the guy who “blew” a .04 on a roadside Breathalyzer test as a “drunk” driver. Hang ’em high!

It gets worse.

Porsche may be “investing” $70 million in a fraction of the “fast” charging stalls that will be necessary to support a fleet of electrified exotics, but the parent company – VW/Audi – is going to hemorrhage $2 billion into the project.

Whom do you suppose gets the bill for that?

If you said – the buyer of the electrified Turducken, you’d be correct, sir (as Ed McMahon used to say). But only partially. While Porsche – and the other companies leaping like lemmings over the EV cliff – will necessarily have to fold the cost of all these “investments” into the price of their electrified offerings – a portion will also be funded by you, even if you never warm the seat of an electric turducken.

Your tax dollars will be at work.

They already are.

Porsche North America CEO Klaus Zellmer says “Electrify America (this is the government mandated hairshirting VW/AudiPorsche was forced to finance as part of the squealing “deal” it made with the government) and our Porsche dealer network will provide a national infrastructure for DC fast-charging that frees future Taycan owners from range anxiety.”

Which is true.

But he really ought to tell them about the wait.

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  

 

Share Button

129 COMMENTS

  1. Heads up Eric:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-05/ocasio-cortez-formulates-green-new-deal-fix-climate-and-repair-historic-oppression

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez

    Well worth a read. Initially it looks like the typical organising/lobbying by leftist groups – but this one looks to be their Big Plan. In common with many of the Soviet 5 year plans. Looks like a blueprint will be drawn for the complete transformation of the US, going all electric, in the name of CO2. 7 trillion in new debt to fund is the byline. This is an issue you could really provide a Libertarian counterpoint to, perhaps look into just how much more government might overstep into markets/people’s lives/redistribution. Also, the 7 trillion will allow enough debt expansion to pay the current interest due on current borrowings, so the money system should endure… I reckon you could tear some strips off this story.

    Now in going to a carbon free economy, govco will set up markets for new products and massive capital misallocation and ultimately will create a bubble that will pop to much wailing, so this read is well worth it as well, back from 2008:

    https://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/the-next-bubble/

  2. As long as Federal Reserve Notes are required to trade for the energy to run the electric cars, just like like gasoline and oil, I’m happy. And as long as the electric cars require dealerships to work on them so that you people can’t work on them yourselves, I’m even happier. Fossil fuels or electricity, it doesn’t matter: as long as what we call money continues to change hands, I’m happier still.

  3. The increased frequency of the true believers and/or paid shills spewing their communist directive here is directly correlated to the increased attention Eric has given to the stupidity of the EV agenda.

    I’m very impressed by the people here who have the knowledge to intelligently and continually refute the Warmers’ flawed claims. I know it’s exhausting, but you may be swaying some of those on the fence.

    My suggestion to those genuinely seeking truth, as opposed to justification, is to just go by whether the argument/solution increases state power or not. The right answer will promote freedom for the common man. The wrong answer will promote slavery of the common man and an increase in state power.

  4. Maybe Porsche will even allow access to their dealership plug-in stalls 24 hours a day. so that their customers won’t be burdened with having to purchase the required equipment to install at their homes?

    I write that slightly in jest, because this whole electrification of transportation makes about as much sense as everybody installing oil-burning stoves in their homes for their daily cooking. The reason liquid fuel works so well for motor vehicles is because of portability (among other reasons). It makes less sense for everyone to install an oil tank in their backyard to run their home stove.

    Just like it takes a village to raise an idiot, it takes a government to make a fustercluck of our transportation infrastructure. And those same government goons will say, “Hey–we made it, so we can break it.”

  5. Everything was fine for the greenies/leftists when CO2 was 200 ppm. Yet the current 400 ppm (.02 percent increase) is somehow alarming. Is the Earth’s ecosystem really so fragile?… Call me when it’s 4000 ppm.

    (400-200)
    ———– = 0.0002
    1,000,000

    • 4000 ppm will mean you will have to mow your lawn every day.
      And eventually the bugs will be big enough to ride.
      We would also have very inexpensive Mammoth steaks.

      Things to ponder.

  6. 100X more CO2 than man produces has been naturally seeping from the earth everyday for BILLIONS of years and yet the atmosphere contains just 0.04% CO2 which is at a plant-starving level.

    Do you not understand why this is? Do you not understand earth’s basic Carbon Cycle?

    • Hi Cambo,

      Two questions for climate alarmists:

      – Given that 150ppm or less of CO2 would create plant death, and thus the death of all life (https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg23431311-500-plant-departure/) and that the evidence suggests that life thrived at 7,000 ppm, does it make sense that 280ppm is “optimal”?

      – If, as alarmists claim, our complex climate system is subject to “runaway global warming”, why are we still here? The claim that CO2 will create a positive feedback loop that will become irreversible is a claim that the climate system is inherently unstable.

      Cheers,
      Jeremy

      • There is optimal global temperature where deserts and frozen tundra will return to forest land…whatever that temperature is. At that point, whatever the atmospheric CO2 level is will be “optimal”. My GUESS is 1500 ppm.

        Global warming CAUSES higher atmospheric CO2 and H2O. We are in a longterm warming trend for 400 years even though there has been a nasty solar minimum for the last 10 years.

  7. Great topic and comments on this. One aspect I would note is that as of today (Feb 2019) you can get where I live (Houston area) a gallon of regular for well under $2.00. Sometimes around $1.80. Yes it fluctuates but what is the economic panic over “the cost of gasoline” about? Electricity costs here vary and are fairly low due to the TX grid, but as coal is being eliminated it will gradually climb. It will in theory track the cost of carbon fuel (oil/natural gas) and renewables. Texas electric production already has the highest percentage of renewable generation of any state. Of course due to remoteness of wind and solar farms the huge costs of transmission and storage (at night, calm) will drive this up. Fracking has made dinosaur fuel cheaper and cheaper and the US is now an exporter. So the “cost” issue is heading towards cheaper gasoline and higher electricity costs. Bet on it.
    What this is really all about is that the Red-Greens want the USA to resemble the old USSR. Few private vehicles, expensive and scarce. The proles will take the bus, the trains (where they exist), ride share or walk. Maybe bike in good weather. And some of us remember how environmentally pristine the USSR was.

    • I don’t think residential transmission is up to the task of everyone doing so at once under many conditions. Imagine a hot summer night and everyone has the AC on while charging the car to get to work the next day. Even if the electric service to an individual house can do that can the lines on the poles carry enough for nearly every house to be doing that?

      • “Even if the electric service to an individual house can do that can the lines on the poles carry enough for nearly every house to be doing that?”

        Yes.
        Clover
        Traditionally peak demand is about 3 PM .
        By 11 PM demand is declining

        • Clover,

          How many barges does the Volga Canal carry each day? How many suites are there in PyongYang’s pyramidal hotel?

          The fundamental fact remains: EVs require massive subsidy IVs and must be forced onto the market via regulations that effectively mandate their manufacture. Everything else is a non sequitur.

    • Hey Anonymous, I think BrentP is correct on this. To a first very rough comparison, private transportation uses approximately as much energy as a private home. In other words, an electric car (used for actual daily use, not for fair weather drives) will take about as much energy as the owner’s home does. The electrical grid is currently designed for efficient supply of power to homes. In order for electric cars to be common and charged at home, we will need to double current capacity. Think of all the additional generating plants, sub-stations, power lines, rewired homes, etc., that would be needed. If only one home out of a hundred has an EV, that is no big problem, but if EVs are the norm, it becomes a very big problem.

      • Well… I really don’t think an electric car uses as much power as a private home.

        For example, I have an electric car… a Volt. When charging, it pulls the same amount of electricity as a clothes dryer for about four hours, if the battery is empty. I typically don’t run it to empty, so a daily charge takes two hours. That’s really not a lot of electricity. And the cost is minimal, about one dollar (at $.15/kwh).

        And who knows if the grid can handle mass electric car charging. Most folks will charge overnight… and that is typically when electricity demand is lowest and there is overcapacity… except maybe during a heat wave. Power companies may have to add capacity to handle the load… but they will certainly charge for it… and make more money.

        But, as for me, I doin’t have to charge. I can just run on gasoline. And that’s the beauty of the Volt (or other plug-in-hybrid).

        • Hi Anonymous,

          Your Volt is actually a part-time electric car with a smaller battery than a full-time EV. It uses less electricity because it uses gas – to keep the battery charged and relies on the gas engine to help propel the car. Your car is functionally more similar to a plug-in Prius than a Tesla.

          • Hi Eric:

            Thank you for responding to my post. Well… in my opinion, the Volt is an EV. It is not a part time electric car. It is an EV that has a gasoline powered generator so it can keep going when its battery runs down. It’s electric motor is capable of pushing it to its top speed of 100MPH. It does not need the gas engine to propel the car like a plug in Prius. The first gen cars (which mine is) can go about 40 miles on the battery alone (the 2nd gen cars can go about 70 miles).

            The battery is charged from a charging station like every other EV, not from the gas engine. And the Volt uses essentially the same amount of electricity as any other EV to cover the same distance. Now, to be completely accurate, there is one exception. There is a driver selectable mode called “Mountain Mode”, that will charge the battery up to 35%, if it is at less than 35%, for mountain driving. This mode can be used to force the generator charge the battery (but only to 35%) but it is very inefficient and is a waste of gasoline.

            Let’s take a Tesla and my Volt on a 40 mile trip. The Volt and Tesla both make the trip, humming along on the same number of electrons. Now, lets take an 80 mile trip. The Volt hums merrily along for 40 miles and at mile 41 the engine comes to life and the trip continues on gasoline generated electrons. When the Volt gets home, I plug it in, and the fully depleted battery gets charged from 0 miles to 40 miles, which takes about 13.5kWh of electricity from the local power company. The Tesla, for the same 80 mile trip, hums along on electrons for the entire 80 miles. When it gets back home, it is plugged in and charges those 80 miles back up, using about 2x the Volt, or 27kWh. This must have been the scenario that you were thinking of when you said the Volt used less electricity (from the power company). But… it all depends on the distance driven. If the Volt owner and the Tesla owner both have less that a 40 mile daily commute, they will use exactly the same amount of electricity (from the power company) when they charge their cars.

            Many (maybe most) Volt owners never run the engine; their daily drive is within the range of the battery. The average daily commute in the U.S. is around six miles.

            You are forgiven for not knowing the intimate details of the Volt. No one does. GM did a very poor job of marketing the car. I think it was the most misunderstood car ever made. As more and more people discover the limitation of EV’s, they will appreciate the brilliance of an EV that doesn’t need to be charged to keep going. I will never own a battery only EV as my only vehicle. I like the freedom to go as far as I like, whenever I like. I refuse to wait in line (or just wait) for a battery charge and I have enough anxiety in my life without worrying about my car running down.

            Thanks for reading this, and keep up the good work. I really enjoy reading your articles.

            • Hi Anonymous,

              I’ll begin by saying I actually like the Volt, kinda sorta – in that it isn’t gimped by range/recharge issues as are other EVs. But – ironically – this is because it’s got an internal combustion engine, as well as an electric motor/battery pack. Technically speaking, it is a hybrid. It leans more toward being a full-time electric car, but it’s not 100 percent because it isn’t 100 percent electrically propelled.

              You’re right that most (but not all) of the propulsion is provided by the electric motor; however, the gas engine provides the power for the battery pack once the 50-ish mile range is depleted and also some propulsive power as well. I’ve driven several myself, fyi – so I have actual experience as well as technical knowledge of the car.

              To go farther than 50-ish miles on a charge – without needing to plug in to recharge – you’d need a higher capacity battery, as the Tesla has.

              But then, you’d have no room for an IC engine to recharge while you drive – and so be stuck waiting rather than driving.

      • You’d have to more than double it to compensate for demand factors. Not all charging will be done at night especially if someone drives a lot.

        • Charging will probably be, commute home, plug in. They will be drawing during the evening power spike of the 9-5 workday household.

          Unless there is enough range left at the end of the day to drive to (and back) a restaurant.

          https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-true-cost-of-powering-an-electric-car.html
          “Depending on the Southern California Edison rate plan, a 2018 Tesla Model 3, rated at 26 kWh/100 miles, would cost as little as $1.56 for 50 miles’ worth of power if home charging started at 11 p.m. Or it could cost four times as much, $6.37, if the car was routinely charged during peak hours.”

          26kWh is 3.5 days worth of my low usage house electrical consumption. Probably close to 1 day for an average family home.

          So roughly doubling the grid draw in the above example. And high demand rate electricity makes gas seem cheap.

          YMMV.

          • The electric “advantage” will be further eroded once the gunvermin start applying road taxes to EVs. Right now they are getting a free ride in that regard as part of the gangsters’ attempt to “nudge” people in the direction of electrics cars.

          • As soon as you have 15,000 EV’s charging at night “off peak” the total demand on the system will basically go back to peak rates, 24/7.

  8. the right always makes the same mistakes for 60 years. they think by laying out tons of true facts they will change a communists agenda. don’t matter if it is immigration homo stuff electric cars black crime destruction of cities schools music family etc. THEY DONT CARE cause they hate your guts want to loot you then want you dead. they ONLY way to fight them is to eliminate them

    • …You will never get rational civilized humane people to understand this. They will wake up dead before they understand. Democrats are retarded thieving terrorists.

    • Conservatives try to use rational and logical arguments, while at the same time being polite and feeling they are on the same playing field. Those on the other side, however, think they occupy the moral high ground, and therefore anything you try to discuss is met with disdain and name calling (after a while). In their mind, the ends justify the means.

      In real simple terms, they see conservatives as literal NAZI’s, and in their minds, it simply makes no sense to argue with a NAZI as nothing a NAZI could say, would change their view or stance (high moral ground).

    • This is fearful yet true. Look at the anti-human push thrown up as working suggestions to combat climate change. Depopulation, stop having babies, etc…

  9. Steve,

    “Carbon?” Are you serious?

    CO2 is Carbon DIOXIDE.

    Carbon Dioxide is the very fertilizer of life. It is the fuel that powers plants, which power our entire cycle of life.

    You can call CO2 “carbon” as soon as you start referring to H2O as “hydrogen.”

    Your attempt at verbal trickery (Dirty Carbon! Bad Carbon!) is a nonsensical influence game played by those who aim to destroy capitalism in general, and our freedom to use internal combustion engines (and coal power plants, and gas power plants) in particular.

    CO2 is the positive, life-giving essence of our entire world. Those who demonize CO2 are doing the bidding of a wicked and destructive cult.

    Second, even if CO2 was not the life-giver, and instead was a pollutant (which it is not) the amount of CO2 emitted by our petroleum by-product fueled transportation engines is not even a gnat’s fart compared to the natural emissions of CO2 (volcanoes, the ocean, termites, and more and more). Less than 4% of CO2 emissions come from human sources (and remember that wily and dangerous CO2 is less than 0.04% of earth’s atmosphere!)

    So, Eric is spot-on. Your “carbon” scare-mongering is nonsensical pandering to a death-cult that demands the end of the modern world.

    • CO2 ONLY traps heat in a very narrow bandwidth and the effect is not linear – that is each additional molecule of CO2 absorbs proportionally less than the one before it. Once that bandwidth is saturated it will trap no more heat. This is real science that the Algorians forget to mention.

      CO2 concentration FOLLOWS warming NOT the other way around. It follows it by released dissolved CO2 from the oceans. This process has been going on for at least a billion years. The planet warmed (slightly) recently, that sort of thing happens when ice ages end. Now Earth is cooling again. We need every gram of CO2 and then some or else we all starve. Human’s pitiful contribution to the total is insignificant.

      • Furthermore it is at low concentrations that CO2 is for all engineering purposes maxed out on what it can trap. 300ppm comes to mind, but I forget the exact number.

        The warmists claim that the tiny bit more that is left for CO2 to trap will be amplified by other factors and cause disaster. Decades later it hasn’t happened so once again they push the date further out. Meanwhile looking at the measurements in other ways, frequency of cold days, hot days, etc shows its getting cooler.

    • Kent, nobody denies that CO2 is the “fertilizer of life” as you put it. Growing plants use the carbon and dump the oxygen and have been doing it over 2 billion years. The problem is that we are currently pumping twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere annually as plants and forests can absorb. But don’t take my word for it. Do your own research and then come to your own conclusions.

      • “But don’t take my word for it. Do your own research and then come to your own conclusions.”

        I won’t. I did.

        Conclusion was that the ‘experts’ were so sure of the truth of their claims that they massaged, twisted, contorted and outright fabricated data. Warming, cooling whatever, the data is so suspect as to now be irrelevant. Whatever truth was to be known, the politics have made the ‘science’ nothing but propaganda.

      • LOL @ the Warmer. We had almost reached the point where plants would’ve been starved for CO2. A little increase was desired…and necessary.

      • Thanks for your advice, Steve. I never would have thought of that myself! Gosh, do my own vetting and research?! What a great idea! /sarc!

        I’ve been following, researching, writing on, and vetting the climate scammers for 20+ years.

        First, levels of Carbon DIOXIDE in the atmosphere have no discernible effect on temperature (even the manipulate/adjusted/homogenized fake temperatures that NASA/NOAA report).

        Second, even if CO2 did have an effect on atmospheric temperature, mankind’s contribution is tiny/miniscule/insignificant.

        Third, even if CO2 warmed the earth like a greenhouse, AND man’s CO2 was a major factor, the question becomes: what are the positives, and what are the negatives? Cost/benefit analysis.

        Alarmist cult members scream constantly about Manhattan disappearing, the Maldives submerging, “climate refugees,” colder/hotter/wetter/drier/hurricanes/droughts/the sky is falling!

        But do any climate cultists ever consider: might a warmer world with more CO2 be a better world?

        Warmer, more vegetation, less snow, less ice….hmmm…sorta sounds like the place you go for a vacation, doesn’t it?

        • I’ve been educating myself on this subject for 20+ years too. I remember arguing with warmists in the 1990s on how they know the temperature record was accurate. They insulted me, said things like I didn’t know how to use a thermometer properly. That the measurements were accurate. Today, with no warming signal to be found in the measurements they have all these adjustments because apparently the people didn’t know how to use thermometers. So which is it? Like the weather, it’s whatever supports warming at the moment.

          I could go on. But the story of my early years was ask simple questions of warmists and get insults in reply. As I learned more I realized why that happened. Their theory can’t deal with the simple questions and the measurements.

          Of course in recent years we have the work of Tony Heller and others that shows clearly that error the warmists claim they are correcting either isn’t there or doesn’t need correcting because of it being a large data set and that that the adjustments introduce a perfect temperature rise to CO2 signal.

          • Hi Brent,

            To paraphrase Rothbard: “It is no crime to be ignorant of climatology, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on climate subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

            I am astounded and disheartened by the stunning ignorance of most of those who dismiss skeptical criticism of CAGW orthodoxy. It is rare that I speak to an alarmist who knows anything of substance about the issue. Yet, when I demonstrate a high level of knowledge (with facts, history, theory, etc…), they still insist that I don’t know what I’m talking about and dismiss me as a tool of the Koch brothers (if only I were, that’d be sweet). Certainty, combined with ignorance is an indicator of fanaticism, not reason.

            Cheers,
            Jeremy

            • Jeremy, from our first days in school what defines a “smart” child? Parroting back what teacher told you. Anyone who doesn’t say what teacher (authority) said is stupid, ignorant, or worse.

              The answer to the accusations of being paid off by wealthy hydrocarbon fuel interests is: “Well, then where’s my check?” Because there is no money for it. The wealthy interests are behind the false narrative because they ultimately control the “alternatives”. The goal isn’t to stay in any one sort of business the goal is margin. Hydrocarbon fuels are a low margin business that the bigs probably would like to move away from to something else. But they can’t move on, like the incandescent light bulb makers couldn’t. Why? Free market. If they got out someone else would step in. So just make what they are going to leave behind illegal.

  10. Hi Eric, The problem wit ICE powered vehicles is the carbon they emit in the form of CO2. The other tailpipe emissions as you correctly reiterate have been mostly eliminated., and they are no longer the problem. But ICEs still produce and release into the atmosphere 20 pounds of C02 for ever gallon of gasoline they burn. In the US 143 billion gallons of gasoline was burned in 2017. That’s over a billion tons of carbon in the US alone that goes straight into the atmosphere. The big oil companies don’t like to talk about this and they continue to downplay the problem for all its worth. Even though for many years science has established the connection between CO2 and global climate change. Not that electric cars are the solution for all the reasons you and others have pointed out. If everything is taken into account (battery producton, etc), I wouldn’t be surprised if the total carbon footprint of e-vehicles is even larger ! Sir Richard Branson has put his money on the line to find a solution to save the ICE: https://www.virginearth.com/
    Cheers

    • Hi Steve,

      Yes, they “emit” C02. The question is whether that constitutes any tangible threat of harm to… anything. Well, other than our liberties – and pocketbooks.

      The “climate change” thing is extremely questionable, right down to its deliberately unscientific (because vague) title. The “climate” is constantly “changing” … thus, this term can encompass anything – and that isn’t science, it’s propaganda.

      The “science” in re “climate change” is far from “settled.” Data has been cherry picked and fudged and C02 levels placed out of context by hysterics and those with a political ax to grind.

      Do you realize how comparatively little the amount of C02 you reference is on a planetary scale? Do you know that C02 levels have generally been much higher during the course of the Earth’s habitable existence?

      Did you know the computer models on which “climate change” hysteria is premised are based on (among other things) temperature readings taken in cities but not in other areas – skewing the picture of global temperatures?

      What is the effect of the sun on the Earth’s changing climate?

      Do you think the climate isn’t supposed to change? That “change” is unnatural?

      What is the factual evidence for catastrophic “climate change”?

      If the low-lying coastal areas are going to be inundated by rising sea levels, why are big banks making huge investments in development projects there? Wouldn’t insurance companies refuse to underwrite the “risks”?

      Do you see the government (and world elites) imposing energy austerity on themselves?

      Do you find it at all interesting that at just the moment in time when the IC engine has been refined to the point of negligible harmful emissions, a new “emission” suddenly appears on the stage? One that is – essentially – uncontrollable except by eliminating IC? An inert gas heretofore regarded as beneficial to life?

      It’s a con, Steve. The new excuse for restricting us, controlling us and mulcting us.

      • IMO the only con being perpetrated is the one by groups like the Heartland Institute, all well financed by the oil and coal lobby. Their opposition is looking more and more like that of the tobacco industry who for decades claimed there was no evidence that smoking causes lung cancer and for decades fought tooth and nail to protect their industry. Didn’t turn out so good for them. Do you actually think that in this day and age, 95% of the world’s scientists and research institutions around the work in agreement, the people that actually collect and analyze the data don’t have a clue? It’s not even rocket science!

        • Hi Steve,

          None of what you’ve written is an argument; at least, not a relevant one.

          First, science isn’t a democracy. At one time, “95 percent” believed the Earth was flat. A majority vote doesn’t define scientific fact.

          And the “95 percent” you reference is even more misleading because it’s taken out of context. It is true a majority of those polled (i.e., a sample) concur that average temperatures have risen over the past century; but “95 percent” do not amen the catastrophic “climate change” scenario, nor even agree that the temperature rise is due to human activity rather than caused by natural phenomena.

          The whole thing comes down to a very modest (about 1 percent) measured difference in average temperatures – from which (via corrupt data and computer models) a catastrophic scenario has been confected.

          The whole thing is about controlling energy, Steve – and thereby, the population. I will believe a “crisis” is imminent when I see indisputable facts – not computer-model’d speculation – and when the government starts to impose energy austerity upon itself.

        • Steve,

          As an aside: Don’t believe everything you read – or hear. Do you remember “Peak Oil” – and the certainty with which that was purveyed by the same people now peddling “climate change”?

          Who used to peddle “global warming” – until that became untenable?

            • Hi Steve,

              The linked article is a perfect example of what’s wrong with this debate. It implies that skeptical climate scientists deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, they do not. I know of no credible scientist who makes such a claim.

              Skeptics accept the science that is actually well established but challenge the level of climate sensitivity embedded in the models and the certainty and accuracy of the temperature record. Anyone who claims that these areas are “settled” beyond dispute is either dishonest or ignorant. These are valid and important questions and those who smear those who make them as “deniers” are employing a despicable and profoundly anti-scientific tactic.

              The use of the term “denier” is dishonest and morally reprehensible. It’s purpose is to link skeptics to holocaust deniers and, thereby, shut off any debate. No person, acting as a scientist could, in good faith, use such a term. In addition, outside of a few cranks and politicians who could be described as “deniers”, such a creature does not exist.

              Do you know what the skeptics supposedly “deny”? Hint, it’s not what is claimed.

              Do they “deny” the science of the “greenhouse effect”, demonstrated by John Tyndall in the latter half of the nineteenth century? – No.

              Do they deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? – No.

              Do they deny that CO2 concentration has increased from Tyndall’s time to now? – No.

              Do they deny that this increase is likely due, in large part, to human activity? – No.

              Do they deny that average global temperature has increased since Tyndall’s time? – No.

              So, what exactly do they “deny”?

              First, they question the likely impact of CO2 on climate sensitivity.

              Second, they question the certainty of the temperature record.

              In the first case, Tyndall established that, everything else equal, a doubling of CO2 would lead to about a 1 degree celsius rise in average temperature. Every credible scientist understands that, if this is all that happens, we have nothing to worry about, as every new CO2 molecule has an exponentially diminishing effect on “warming”. The catastrophic claims rest on the assertion that positive feedback mechanisms will elevate the harmless 1C per doubling to 2.5C or more. This assumption is theoretically implausible and unsupported by observational data. The skeptics are correct in questioning this assertion.

              The official temperature record has been adjusted many times recently, always cooling the past and warming the present. Absent these adjustments, the hottest years on record occurred in the 1930’s, not the 2010’s. Note, I am not claiming that these adjustments are necessarily fraudulent. I am sure that there are many valid reasons to adjust the record in light of new data, analysis, etc… However, the entirely one sided nature of the adjustments indicates the strong possibility of confirmation bias; and the frequency of the adjustments necessarily renders the claims of certainty invalid. Again, the skeptics are correct to question this.

              BTW, if funding sources are sufficient to dismiss scientific assertions made by skeptics then the same is true of the proponents of CAGW, who receive far more funding, mostly from sources with an ideological or financial stake in promoting alarmism.

              Jeremy

              • I canceled my subscription to Scientific American many years ago as it become patently obvious that they believed every perceived “problem” should be “solved” by an expansion of government power.

            • Hi Steve,

              Have you read the linked article? Even the headline is dishonest. I looked pretty carefully at the Galileo website and could not find anything that supports this: “In making a case against CO2 as a greenhouse gas…” A responsible and ethical journalist would, if they cared about such qualities, use a qualifier like significant or major. Instead they imply that the Galileo movement is ignorant of the basic science. Nowhere in the article do they cite anything that supports this implication.

              They do, however, inadvertently support the skeptical position when they make this claim: “But earlier findings that suggested higher CO2 levels could increase crop yields have been disproved by recent research showing that other nutrients are more often the limiting factor.” This is a false statement. The earlier findings have not been “disproved”, they have been questioned and challenged. It is well established that in a closed, controlled, environment, increased CO2 promotes plant growth. But, we don’t live in a closed, controlled environment; we live in a complex system. Those challenging the higher crop yield assertions are essentially making an, “it’s more complicated than that”, claim. Guess what, that is the essence of the skeptics criticism of CAGW orthodoxy.

              When alarmists point out that complex systems are…complex, that’s science. When skeptics make the same claim, they’re “deniers”.

              Jeremy

              And then there’s this:

              Claim: Measurements reveal that CO2 levels are a consequence of temperature, not the cause. Temperature drives CO2 levels.

              Assessment: True before 1800. But false today.

            • Hi Steve,

              Continuation:

              Absent adjustments to the temperature record, the only period past 1800 that credibly conforms to the “CO2 drives temperature” theory is from about 1910 – 1940. Most of the warming since 1880 occurred before CO2 levels had increased that much. GAT declined between 1940 and 1970 despite a large increase in CO2. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is well known. Nothing in the modern temperature record supports a causal claim with a certainty of 95%.

              Jeremy

        • The con is being perpetrated by organizations that have the most to gain – national governments as well as the UN, which was created with the intent of it eventually becoming the seat of world government. The climate change Faithful like to paint these organizations as selfless benefactors attempting to “Save the Planet”™ from the evil machinations of “The Corporations”™ – however nothing could be further from the truth.

          In fact governments are violent, psychopathic criminal gangs which crave power and stolen wealth. A boot stamping on a human face forever, to coin a phrase. “Climate change” fear mongering gives them a weapon which can be used to radically increase their power and their ability to extract ever more in taxes at gunpoint while the victims being raped clamor for more. It’s the perfect protection racket.

        • I find the idea that scientists funded by X are honest while scientists funded by Y are dishonest a rather curious belief system. It assumes that money corrupts the process but only for those of the other camp. If money corrupts the process then why is government funded science immune when politics, the most corruptible force in human society, dictates the funding?

          There is essentially zero money for opposition to CO2 driven climate change theory. There have been billions spent in foundation and taxpayer money to promote the theory. What little is spent in opposition doesn’t even amount to pocket change, maybe pocket lint. Then we are supposed to be surprised that people find warming. People often find what you pay them to find.

          The problem that keeps the debate open is that the data is and has been inconvenient for those saying CO2 is the thermostat of the earth. It takes a great deal of authoritative data analysis and estimation methods to pull out, essentially create a warming signal. Then various presentation techniques to create alarm. It just is not there without it. People find what they are paid to find. People show what they are supposed to show to get a paycheck.

          As a result people with zero funding can blow gaping holes in the narrative simply by going back to the measurements themselves and presenting the data honestly prior to any expert interpretation. It shows how very much that we aren’t dealing in realm of measurements put of opinions.

        • First, the “scientists” and “research institutions” are all government-financed and have massive bias towards agreeing with the politically correct pre-conceived required “results” from their “research.”

          Second, even then, the “97% consensus” was a fraud from beginning to end.

          Here are 97 published papers that refute the fraudulent claims by Cook (a cartoonist, by the way) that all the fake 97% consensus are based on:

          http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

        • LOL @ another Warmer. 79 self-selected junk scientists met in a room and took a poll on the AGW hoax. 77 of them thought AGW was real. I’m surprised it wasn’t 100%

          How about the 31,000 real scientists who signed a petition declaring it was a hoax?

          • Another thing the Warmist cult members tend to avoid is the fact that there are government and UN officials in charge of perpetrating this hoax who have clearly stated that what they are doing has nothing to do with the environment. Rather, their purpose is to end free enterprise worldwide and taking control of distribution of the earth’s resources. (Their words.) In other words, a planetary socialist “utopia.” Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

            It’s hard to even call it a conspiracy when people pushing the agenda have no qualms about admitting what it is that they are actually doing. Yet the useful idiots continue marching with their “fight climate change” signs and banners like puppets on strings. It’s mind-boggling.

        • Steve, puny man likes to think he has an oversized effect on this rock we live on. Newsflash, we don’t. Period. Its been here for 4.6 Billion years. We dont even register as an itch for Earth to scratch. There’s literally nothing we could do to chabge the environment we live in long-term. Detonate every Nuke all at once, melt down the ice caps with ’em, it won’t matter. Earth will be fine and we would too. Once the fallout settled. Earth has been an iceball a dozen times over due to the influence the Sun has and our planets orbit and distance from it. Doesn’t matter how much we generate emissions wise. GW is a cult of idiots and you are a charter member its obvious. (((They))) are laugjing all the way to bank with your vote and money while rubbing their hands in glee at your stupidity.

    • Steve, I have to call BS on that comment … a gallon of gasoline weighs only about 6 lbs there is no way that that 6 lbs can be transformed into 20 lbs … I’d like to see the math to back up that statement!

      • The extra weight comes from the carbon in gasoline combining with atmospheric oxygen when it burns. CO2 means one atom of oxygen and 2 atoms of oxygen. It’s basic chemistry Duh!!

        • If that is true that means ICE’s are destroying the world’s limited supply of oxygen and must surely be banned then…
          2 O molecules contain 250% more mass than 1 C molecule in CO2…. therefore Oxygen is the devil.

    • Steve, Yes there is a lot of scientific research and data establishing links, of everything and every sort. However, correlation dopes not equal causality. That presumption, and subsequent assertion is what Uncle uses to shove regulations down our throats and procedures up our asses. You may feel the need to take one up the ass to safe the planet, but you might as well hold your breath so as not to add to the ever-increasing levels of CO2, for all that matters. The scientific research and data on conservation of energy, and the balance of all elements on Earth, living or not, is forever going to be twisted and turned into a means of public control, regardless of the reality of said benefits. What does that mean for you and me, and the rest of us just trying to mind our own business? It means enough will NEVER be enough as far as politicians and do-gooders go, to say nothing of drug addicts, pushers, and all the other sorts of criminals. The AI that hasn’t even been built yet will have the answer in about 30 seconds, Humanity is the problem, and termination is the solution. One day, the dumb fat fuck politicians will have the world convinced that genocide is the only answer, then what will your argument be? Might as well stop eating and learn how to breathe underwater at that point. Because long before there are no more resources, the PTB will be eliminating the competition (us) for what will inevitably remain. Cheery thought, huh?

  11. In Munich the city government is transforming more and more parking space into recharging stations. And , you know the germans are crazy about going all electric. So , what you write about may just be a US specific problem.

  12. What they fail to mention is even with a 120v > 800v transformer it not possible to charge one of these that fast in a home.
    The 800v is DC, the 120 v rms is AC in order to generate 800 volts DC you would need nearly 600v rms AC for a 6:1 transformer. The thing they forget to mention is it is not voltage that charges the car, it is CURRENT.
    I will do the math later, but you need AMPS, whatever amperage you need on the high voltage secondary side you have to multiply that by 6 on the primary low voltage side. Then they have to rectify and filter it to turn it into DC, using diodes and big electrolytic capacitors.

    The conversion losses are huge.

    I guarantee that no normal household’s 150-200 amp service will be able to handle this fast charger.

    • Off topic, sorta.

      At work I have some responsibility for DC power systems. These are very large (physically small, actually because of switching power supplies) -48 VDC rectifiers that require 220 V, 30 A breakers. A few months ago a contractor was installing additional HVAC in the room. I happened to check his progress and saw that he was getting ready to attach the new unit to one of the six double-pole 30 A breakers that feeds the plant. When I told him he couldn’t do that, he complained that the current draw was only about 2 A, so what’s the problem? “Did you see all those giant batteries in the other room? Yea, when they bulk charge we’ll use up all that 30 amps and maybe more.”

      We like batteries because they help us get closer to 99.999% uptime, but they are an added chore for sure. You don’t just plug ’em in and go. And as you point out, adding a car charger to a 200 A service, especially with electric heat and HVAC, will quickly max out the panel rating.

    • Thanks Alex, I ran some basic calcs based on Porsches 450kw charger and came up with very high amp draws. So much so, I think I was making a mistake somewhere. I then theorized that the charging cable would have to be around 4″ thick! I can’t be right, so only smarter people than me really know.
      You are heads above my limited understanding.
      Can’t wait to see what you come up with.
      Eric should do a write up on it alone.

      • My first quick calcs show insane current draw on the primary. I am working on a project now so I don’t have time to flesh it all out but it safe to say no one will have a fast charger at their home.

        It is not just the residential panelboard but every pole (or ground pad ) transformer, every conductor and the switchgear at the substation, as well as the transformers. No one even asks what a 13 million volt step down transformer costs or how many will be required. It so easy to say “Yeah just upgrade the grid, no problem.”

        One substation transformer might cost easily over a million dollars and take 6 months from time to order to delivery. Circuit breakers will need to be replaced and I mean breakers the kind of which Readykilowatt works with, a hundred grand a pop would be cheap.

        It’s a fool errand.

        • I came up with similar ‘insane’ results. I also know enough, that if my calcs were right, that there is no way in hell it could apply to residential services.
          Looking forward to your results.
          Thank you. Was waiting for someone e-smarter than me to join the discussion.

          ps: If I remember correctly it was 2000amps or 600amps, either way, no dice for residential. The 600 could be done, but not without considerable expense !!!!!!

          • 600 amps cannot be done, you have to adjust for the voltage. The way a transformer works is if you have a 1:4 step up say 100-400 volts and need 100 amps at 400 volts you will need 400 amps on the primary side to give equivalent KW.
            the EVTards evidently do not know the difference between volts and amps, they are always telling me that can step up 120 to any voltage they like and all have superchargers in their garages, easy peasy.

            • The only way I see it potentially working is if you can bring in 800v +/- from the street to your house (for Porsche’s example). I don’t know what the voltage is at the street and I assume it’s different on every street. On my rural road, it’s fairly high voltage going through 3 miles to a development, so you could tap off that, but good luck paying to bring it to your house.
              A friend built a mega house and had to bring in 240v/600A service, and I think it cost him $20-30K to do it (800ft)

              • I am looking into thi now for specifics, James at the dealership told me it will be six months, since the HV at the local pole is too low and the JEA (local utility) has to run new lines. They are supposed to get six chargers.
                For that I assume they would bring in MV 5kv (4160v) but to deal with 5kv safety as ReadyKilowatt knows will take a local substation at the dealership, and 5KV requires extraordinary precautions, in fact I plan to put in a bid for the MV work.

      • There seems to be little good info on how far these cars go on a given amount of KWh, I have seen widely varying numbers so I am not sure which to use. Still researching, it is hard to separate the reality from the hype, you have Tesla fanbois claiming 300-400 miles per charge which is utter BS.

        I am having trouble getting a spec sheet for these chargers. I happen to own a Porsche and stopped by the dealer and asked my service guy if he knows anything about them. He didn’t except he thought that said they have to upgrade the power to the dealership to 480VAC 3 phase. Which makes sense, but doesn’t change the requirements much, it is still massive amounts of current.

        3 phase, 350 kw with unity power factor is 480 amps on the 480 side, more if you compensate for power factor and losses.

        The AC to DC conversion is loaded with losses, as it has to be rectified and filtered, the size, cost, and complexity increased exponentially with the capacity.

        At home a 150 kw charger on your 220v two phase house current gives us about 370 amps draw on the panelboard. This is not happening. The most you can expect to provide from the house is maybe 12 kw, so overnight charging is really your only option. Do-able until all your neighbors are trying to do the same thing if they do then break out the candles and kerosene lamps.

        They make the point that EV’s are cheaper to run, perhaps they are, but if you like Eric does put a Leaf against a Versa, the retail cost difference is substantial. A Leaf goes for an average of $33k or so a Versa might cost you $14k. $20k will buy a LOT of gasoline enough to drive nearly 300k miles in the Versa at 32mpg. (Versa is rated at more than that)

        If you subtract the cost of the drive train from the Versa, who knows but I think $3500 might be fair (low) you are down to around $10k. So the EV powertrain COSTS $23k! How much energy is in that cost? I say quite a bit maybe the vast majority of the cost of it. So where is the “green savings” LMAO – China I guess, ship more coal quick.

  13. These chargers may use a cord, but what I want to know is what happens to a cat that sits between the car and the wireless charger when it is turned on?

  14. Eric,
    You are probably already writing the article but FCA and Nissan and others have their Jan19 sales reports out. Nissan shat a brick and went down everywhere except Frontier sales. FCA had large increase in Ram sales. GM and Ford….. crickets….

    • GM will be laying off more than 14,000 and closing plants very soon.
      Spent more than $10 billion on stock buybacks.
      What a way to do business.
      Goodbye GM.

  15. How would one short these EV vehicles out? don’t you take a copper wire and stick one end into the negative slot and the other into the positive slot??? bzzzzzzzzzzzz…………………ZAP! electronics fried?

  16. There have been many cases of serial killers and mass murderers who do so in order to conceal their own sexual impotence. This Whole EV fanaticism bears an awful lot of similarities, just sayin’.

  17. Eric quoted:

    Porsche North America CEO Klaus Zellmer says “Electrify America (this is the government mandated hairshirting VW/AudiPorsche was forced to finance as part of the squealing “deal” it made with the government) and our Porsche dealer network will provide a national infrastructure for DC fast-charging that frees future Taycan owners from range anxiety.”

    Another loss of efficiency…high voltage AC to DC conversion.

  18. Another great piece Eric, shouting down this nonsense.

    I see it’s already been addressed, but bears repeating:

    Right now a cold snap has the natural gas and electric grids on the point of failure in the midwest.

    Add 350 MILLION 500 amp 800 volt “fast” charging EVs to that mix.

    Darkness for all.

    • Are you making an argument for social outcome?

      Shouldn’t each user be able to buy power?Clover

      Isn’t this supposed to be a free commodity market or are you arguing that some users shouldnt’
      access the market because you don’t like them?

      Socialist!

  19. Obviously their “final solution” is not to build more power plants and force everyone into electric cars. It is mass human depopulation and stuffing the remaining obedient slaves into cities where they will have their “mobility solutions” in the form of bicycles and trains. Only the upper political 10% will have personal transportation and private jets. In the world of Statist slavery, you want to be in the Big House…Not picking in the fields. You don’t have the choice to be free like Django Freeman.

    • One correction. Bicycles eventually won’t be allowed, at least without a tracking device. They’ll attack that from the injury angle. Never mind real stats. Bicycles offer far too much freedom. If I don’t need to go a particularly long distance I find bicycling far freer than motoring. But if I need to go a long distance without time constraint I can do that too. Bicycling is simply far too hard for big brother to track and manage while allowing too great a range.

      • They will be limited range eBikes. For a look to the future, look at what the political terrorist in China and EU are doing in their cities. The Chinese have already implemented the global Social Credit System that will eventually control all the people in the world.

        • China’s “social scoring” is something to behold. I warn people. They don’t care.

          I’ve learned most people don’t mind cages if they are nice cages.

          • To a certain extent, it’s already here. You don’t think hiring managers aren’t looking at social media? They ain’t just looking to see if your a drunken party animal anymore. They are looking at your political leanings. Even if you aren’t posting overtly political content, they are probably looking for comments made on other peoples. Facebook even classifies your politics.

            You won’t even get a call for an interview. Your name gets put on a do not hire database.

            There is a reason why you don’t see people other then left wing types working in government, education, fortune 500’s and other large corporations, NGO’s and other “non” profit organizations.

            Forget about most places if you refuse drug testing.

            • Until government gets involved there’s ways of controlling what a mere hiring manager can see or force him to look very very hard for the slightest bit.

            • Never use your real name on social media….although it might behoove you to set up a dummy account using your real name. Just post pictures of your kids on it.

              • Pretty sure I missed out on one or two contracts because I don’t have social media. That and I mock those who do.

                A perspective client noted that he could not find me anywhere on any social media and questioned why.

                Being me, without hesitation I said, ‘Well, I am not a self absorbed, narcissistic, externally validated drama queen, so I don’t need one”.

                The look on his face told me two things. He was and I wasn’t getting the job.

  20. Back of napkin calculation: You will need to build about 10,000 medium-capacity power plants to satisfy the demand…And a shitload of copper.

  21. The political terrorists have figured out that if they use the word “Investment”, then the voting public schooled/TV-watching retards will gladly vote to steal other people’s earnings to pay for that “Investment”. It’s an Investment…That CAN’T be a bad thing…Riiiight?

  22. Just do the math. Charging ~250M vehicles for use everyday will require how many terawatts? You will need 1000s more localized power stations for this capacity. Long-haul electric lines don’t have nearly the carrying capacity so the entire electric In-Fer-Struk-Shur will need to be replaced. You are never going to shove 700kw into the battery pack without destroying it rather quickly. 10 minute charge times?…And how long at -20F?

  23. The amount of energy that charging these cars is positively astounding. Porsche claims that this car charges at 350 kW. That’s 350,000 watts. That’s 200 high power hairdryers, or about the power usage of 150 large American homes – all to charge a single car! Tesla’s charge a bit slower, at 135kW but that is still an astonishing amount of power.

    Here in lunatic land (California), our electric grid is near the breaking point already, since the tree huggers don’t want more power lines causing pollution, and they run hot – causing fires. Adding an apartment building to a city is already a problem for the grid, and one of these cars charges at a rate higher than the energy usage of a giant apartment building.

    I’m pricing out a battery backed solar system, since this is the land of the electric car, and so, blackouts are coming.

    • I think Porsche just raised it to 450kW, hahaha…………
      It makes me laugh how the EV cool-aid-drinkers believe the propaganda (and their own or others disingenuous math).
      I have some simple questions for them that is relevant:
      1. If you believe you can charge your car with 6-8 solar panels, why aren’t you doing it?
      2. If you believe you can run or even partially run your house on roof-top solar, why aren’t you doing it?

    • I’ve run the solar numbers scenario’s 50+ times for youngin’s (for papers), and friends who think they are going to buy or go off-grid. The end result is always the same…………..OMG!
      The large majority don’t even own enough land to put what’s needed.

      And I have nothing against putting up a small system instead of a generator, but you’re not gonna run your e-heat, AC, e-dryer, e-range, etc…. you can run propane/oil fired appliances though. That’s as practical as I have found, run lights, fridge, maybe the microwave a little.

      And I’ll get bashed by the cool-aid-drinkers, always do, and I just say ‘what’s stopping you then?’

      • On FB they were passing along a meme about a guy in Africa who invented a way to power your house by pedaling a bike for an hour a day.
        You’d be amazed at how many accepted that at face value.

        • They should have asked for donations to help ‘bring this technology to the public without Big Oil burying it’. A few dollars each from 100,000 physics ignorant folks would not be a bad income.

          I really have to get in on harvesting stupidity. Seems it is a ripe and growing market. Maybe I do have a use for social media……

      • “I’ve run the solar numbers scenario’s 50+ times for youngin’s”

        I am baffled by how few can do the relatively simple math or understand the formulas to work out consumption. Usually peoples eyes just gloss over shortly after I have taken their power bill, divided it by 30 or 60 days and presented, ‘Here. This is you average daily electrical consumption’. Never even get to storage, maintenance, insolation, backup, conversion factors, inclement weather reserve………

        Going off grid when on it already makes little sense. Starting off grid can, if it saves the cost of running several poles and line.

  24. Eric – thanks for continuing to bang the drum of reason on this subject. The headlong rush to electrify our nations’s entire vehicle fleet is beyond delusional, not to mention the push to electrify every other aspect of our lives. Won’t it be great when all of our energy needs will be met by a single government-controlled monopolistic electricity provider? Who boy, can’t wait!

    One of the last projects of my fleet career was to deploy five Nissan Leafs in a shared vehicle pool. The EV’s were actually a pretty good fit for the application, although we’d occasionally get a call from a distraught driver looking for a quick charge location. The charging infrastructure was installed as part of a mult-agency project that cost millions. I estimated our share of that cost at more than $100K – to charge five little econoboxes! No worries though, it was “grant funded” – cost is no object!

    • My pleasure, Keith – someone’s gotta do it, eh? Might as well be me.

      The saddest thing about this is that EVs which might make sense have been aborted by the perverse incentives created by government.

    • “Even if the electric service to an individual house can do that can the lines on the poles carry enough for nearly every house to be doing that?”Clover

      What is the cost to deploy a gas pump?

      • Clover writes:

        “What is the cost to deploy a gas pump?”

        Low enough to make it profitable (without subsidies or mandates).

        Unlike anything having to do with electric cars.

  25. Was at the Harley Davidson dealer for so work. Talked to them about ‘livewire’. They all seemed 100 pct for it stating the old clean, no emissions nonsense. When I asked “Why would someone buy a $30,000 dollar Electric motorcycle when they are having a tough time selling $24,000 IC bikes?” I got silence.
    Like Global Warming the propaganda has been really effective.

  26. Hi Eric and fellow theologians!This article immediately reminded of another passage from a Douglas Adams novel, Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Please enjoy:

    “Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich.”
    Ford stared in disbelief at the crowd who were murmuring appreciatively at this and greedily fingering the wads of leaves with which their track suits were stuffed.
    “But we have also,” continued the management consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut.”
    Murmurs of alarm came from the crowd. The management consultant waved them down.
    “So in order to obviate this problem,” he continued, “and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and…er, burn down all the forests. I think you’ll all agree that’s a sensible move under the circumstances.”
    The crowd seemed a little uncertain about this for a second or two until someone pointed out how much this would increase the value of the leaves in their pockets whereupon they let out whoops of delight and gave the management consultant a standing ovation. The accountants among them looked forward to a profitable autumn aloft and it got an appreciative round from the crowd”

  27. Do you ever happen across a slow gas pump? I had one yesterday, seemed to take ages to fill.

    https://youtu.be/8ZWeObfx_VY

    The work truck has the towing package, and therefore the 25 (or is it 30?) gallon tank. Great in theory because I get about 700 miles out of a full tank, but in practice I try not to let it get much past 1/2 full just because it takes so long to fill it up. Even this little delay from the slow drip was agonizing. Of course I really shouldn’t complain since I get paid by the hour. Which brings up another point: Imagine the productivity hit when techs and other field personnel will have to stop and recharge. Or will the company install massive numbers of charging stations for overnight charging in the shop lot? What about techs who take their vehicles home at night (which is a surprisingly large number because who wants to have enough secure real estate to store all those vehicles)? If you get called out for an emergency in the middle of the night will your vehicle be charged up enough to get you there? If you charge the work truck at home will you get reimbursed for the electric bill?

    We’re remarkably conditioned to expect things to “just work.” You flip the light switch and it comes on. I always laugh at myself when there’s a power failure and I automatically hit the switch when I walk into a dark room even though I KNOW the power is out -which is a fantastically rare occurrence these days. My vehicles have started first time, every time, for at least a decade now if not more. Are we really going to introduce doubt into the system again?

    • The pump filter was stopped up or very near to it. The service station owner is trying to save himself money by not properly servicing the pumps. Call the fuel company or get fuel somewhere else. When the filter lets loose internally, someone is going to get a tank full of crap that will stop their vehicle fuel pump dead.

      • That’s good to know. This station gets a lot of activity and I’ve had issues with card readers. Not to mention there’s usually a pump or two that are bagged off out of service.

        Too bad it is a pretty good location.

        • Gtc is right. I have a friend who did gas station maintenance, and cleaning filters was probably the job he did most. Some station managers would wait until most of the pumps were going slow before calling him to come. They all thought they were saving money by not doing maintenance, but they were wrong. Just had way bigger bills when they were forced to fix things.

          One of the other jobs he did often, replacing torn off gas pump handles and hoses. He said you have no idea how often that happens. They are designed to break off so little gas gets spilled on the ground.

          He had a nice little side business selling gas caps on ebay that he would pick up from the top of pumps. Had a box on his truck he would toss them into when he saw them.

    • Was the station busy? I’ve noticed slow pumps when a station particularly busy. It’s usually not just a single pump that’s slow but all of them at once. As if there is some centralized manifold that can’t pass enough fuel.

      • Not particularly so, I know that happens too. But my point is that it is already annoying to wait for a slow pump. Imagine if 30+ minutes becomes the norm.

        And the other thing that will add to the frustration is the way the battery pack is charged. The first 80-90% or so of the charge can happen pretty quickly, but the last 10% has to be much lower current or the risk of damage increases. So get used to staring at a display stuck at 99%. And if you are the impatient type and continuously stop charging before it is full you’ll lower the overall capacity and lifespan of the pack. And who thinks the onboard computer isn’t keeping a log of charging cycles?

        • Li Ion and NiMH batteries do not suffer from the memory effect, where you can lower the overall capacity if you do not recharge fully. It’s NiCd batteries that will be damaged by failure to fully recharge the battery. NiMH batteries can suffer a similar issue called voltage depression caused by long term overcharging. Li Ion batteries have their own cons, of course, the worst being the propensity to catch fire rather vigorously if overheated or overcharged.

          • No, not memory effect which is specific to NiCd. But if you abuse Li ion type cells with high charge or discharge rates the lithium compounds will grow tendrils across the electrolyte, which greatly reduces the capacity over time. In extreme cases the tendrils will short out plates, causing extremely violent reactions. Some are more susceptible than others, and with the recent progress in “solid state” electrolytes this might not be a problem for much longer.

            Either way, there are lots of ways to reduce the lifespan of a lithium battery pack. Some intelligent charge controllers will adapt over time and limit the total charge of a battery. Apple got in hot water with the press for slowing down the processor as batteries aged because they decided that maintaining battery life was more important than performance. There’s a trade off between rate of charge, how long you’re willing to wait, and how my current can be drawn, and it all changes dynamically over time.

    • Gas pumps have a filter system with a zero relief valve. If the filter clogs, the pump stops dead. This is a good thing. Gasoline is filtered dozens of times in every step of production/delivery – right up to your tank.

    • I had a car that made the pump continually click off. I took it to the dealer. It turned out that a wasp had built a nest in the gas tank vent line.

LEAVE A REPLY