I have made several roadtrips in EVs. The answer is, that it takes as long as it takes to have a pee, a snack or a cup of coffee, every two or 3 hours. Unless you buy an older generation or a 'city car' EV, in which case you may have to stop for a pee more often.
This Has to be a Joke.
- Thread starter mawnansmiff
- Start date
In Texas we can sell power back to utility but it’s usually from solar power, but not from your EV. It’s all feasible but who wants to get in their car and it’s only 1/4 charged because the grid pulled it? I can only assume it’s a manual switch (not auto) to allow it. If you don’t have solar but do have an EV you can setup a sub panel just for critical needs (frig, cable, outlets) that your EV can maintain through a power outage (like a generator does). No way I would charge my car then allow the grid to pull it. Pointless!!
I have never before wished I owned a truck. Now I do. No wonder Ford has ceased taking reservations for their coming F-150 Lightning, since they will probably be unable to satisfy the demand for several years. Probably no democratic government will 'empty your tank' without a permit, while your EV is parked. That sounds more like FUD. Instead you could look at the positive side of it and embrace the future:
Disclaimer: I (unfortunately) do not own, nor have owned, any shares in the EV industry..
Disclaimer: I (unfortunately) do not own, nor have owned, any shares in the EV industry..
No but in Houston we always lose power in the summer when it’s hot and humid and HVAC is running wide open and compressor is kicking on and off.
If you run electric cooling or heat and electric hot water heater and electric stove your not going to get a lot of backup from your EV.
If you run electric cooling or heat and electric hot water heater and electric stove your not going to get a lot of backup from your EV.
The Japanese, many years ago when I was a child, came up with a net with finned spindles on each corner of each square, that could be placed under docks and generate electricity each time the tide came in and went out. It was a great idea until someone figured out it might harm mollusks or something.
As for O.P.'s comment re: bonkers: A friend of mine got involved in his small town's politics. One member of a minor board (volunteer) wanted the Town to put a charging station at Town Hall so people could charge their vehicles while attending Town Meetings. Everyone immediately objected because it would cost $75000.00 and that member was the only town resident with a $75,000 Tesla; so he wanted all the town's taxpayers to pay for him to drive for free!
As for O.P.'s comment re: bonkers: A friend of mine got involved in his small town's politics. One member of a minor board (volunteer) wanted the Town to put a charging station at Town Hall so people could charge their vehicles while attending Town Meetings. Everyone immediately objected because it would cost $75000.00 and that member was the only town resident with a $75,000 Tesla; so he wanted all the town's taxpayers to pay for him to drive for free!
No need for such an expensive charging 'station' at a town hall. A charger can be installed anywhere at a much lower cost. My son just ordered one to be installed in his own driveway. Total cost for the fully owned charger box with long cable, incl. installation, was usd 1.400,- and then all his visitors with plug in cars can use it. And this example is in Denmark, one of the world's most expensive countries (with high salaries and high taxes).
But here in the USA you need to add in the "feasability study costs"; the "engineering study costs"; the Town Attorney fee for drafting the "Electric vehicle and charging" policies and procedures, the study to see if they can convert all Town vehicles to electric vs gas; payoffs to friends in the business, etc., etc. etc.
I was just reporting what he told me that their initial findings were ... I do not know what the actual figure was or what it actually encompassed ... the point was ... it would only benefit one person at the expense of the entire town.
I know I am cynical but the problem with putting all of the people who couldn't get jobs in the real world into politics is that they learn to create solutions to problems that do not exist to justify their existence rather than solving problems that do exist and then trying to convince you that they have benefitted you greatly and you now owe them. Fortunately you do not seem to have those problems in Denmark and i am jealous ! Best wishes for continued success !!
It’s called vehicle to grid technology and very real and already in use, amongst other technologies for micro grids.
But what of the wear and tear of the very expensive batteries?
If I ever had an EV (which I won't) I'd want my batteries to be in tip top condition for my own use, not the Government's use.
I still think it's a poorly thought out plan.
Regards,
Jay.
If I ever had an EV (which I won't) I'd want my batteries to be in tip top condition for my own use, not the Government's use.
I still think it's a poorly thought out plan.
Regards,
Jay.
Agreed, you and your family come first. Back when I was young and dinosaurs roamed the earth, a related discussion was popular: regarding survival after an EMP strike (all electrical and batteries would be wiped out) ... some people went out and bought cheap pre-1980 cars with little or no electrical features ie: roll down windows, manual lights, door knobs, etc. --- the theory being that you would only need to replace the battery with a well stored spare and could get away to safety. Technology is great most of the time but in an emergency tried and true works best. Fortunately I already had one because it was all I could afford so I felt good about it !!!
P.S. You will have time to get away to safety because most of the government will be in a meeting.
Hillcrest, your mention of an EMP strike reminded me of the story I heard several years ago when some Eastern (I forget which nation) Air Force pilot decided to defect to the West in his fighter jet.
Apparently when he finally landed, the Westerners went over his plane with a fine tooth comb and laughed at his valved/tubed radio communication gear.
His explanation was that in the wake of a nuclear strike his would still work whereas all the Western kit with its plethora of microchips & transistors would be fried in an instant!
Regards,
Jay.
Apparently when he finally landed, the Westerners went over his plane with a fine tooth comb and laughed at his valved/tubed radio communication gear.
His explanation was that in the wake of a nuclear strike his would still work whereas all the Western kit with its plethora of microchips & transistors would be fried in an instant!
Regards,
Jay.
Your nation proved that point most dramatically during the Falklands "War" ... it was the ham radio operators on the island who were able to radio friends in U.S. who in turn relayed to the US military who relayed to UK military the locations of communist troops ! Maybe that was the inspiration for the Terminator movie scene ... 'If you can hear the sound of my voice ... You Are The Resistance !' Which inspires me: Maybe its time to get one of those pipes with the woodland camouflage stems !!!
The idea of EVs as a supplier for the National Grid is ridiculous. The main question remains. The government is not in a position to come up with a viable solution for the transition from fossil fuel to green energy. In the next 20 to 30 years, the energy environment is going to undergo a major transformation to a low- to no-carbon future.
Governemnt should invest in nuclear power as an alternative to tackle our high energy-consumption. In the US they announced plans to build a Integral Molten Salt Reactor. It’s not new though. Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee had successfully operated a demonstration reactor back in the 1960s. It never took off. By the 1960s, researchers had tested reactors featuring combinations of options. But the approach that won out for commercial power production (and that is still used in virtually all of the 454 nuclear plants operating around the world) was the water-cooled uranium reactor. This wasn’t necessarily the best nuclear design, but it was one of the first: water-cooled reactors were originally developed in the 1940s to power submarines. So in the 1950s, when the Eisenhower administration launched a high-profile push to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the technology was adapted for civilian use and scaled up enormously. Other designs, such as the molten salt reactor, were left for later, if ever.
A molten salt reactor differs from a conventional nuclear reactor in a number of ways: starting with the fact that it uses nuclear fuel that’s liquid instead of solid. This has profound implications for safety. For example, meltdowns would be a non-issue: fuel is already molten. And if temperatures in the fuel mix get too high for any reason, a plug of frozen salt below the reactor will melt and allow everything to drain into an underground holding tank for safekeeping. Long-lived nuclear waste would also be a non-issue: a chemical system would continuously extract reaction-slowing fission products from the molten fuel, which would allow plutonium and all the other long-half-life fissile isotopes to be completely consumed.
It will take a while for a reactor to be fully operational. Perhaps the biggest and most unpredictable barrier is the public’s ingrained fear about almost anything labeled nuclear. But when it’s finally there, it will be for the better.
Governemnt should invest in nuclear power as an alternative to tackle our high energy-consumption. In the US they announced plans to build a Integral Molten Salt Reactor. It’s not new though. Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee had successfully operated a demonstration reactor back in the 1960s. It never took off. By the 1960s, researchers had tested reactors featuring combinations of options. But the approach that won out for commercial power production (and that is still used in virtually all of the 454 nuclear plants operating around the world) was the water-cooled uranium reactor. This wasn’t necessarily the best nuclear design, but it was one of the first: water-cooled reactors were originally developed in the 1940s to power submarines. So in the 1950s, when the Eisenhower administration launched a high-profile push to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the technology was adapted for civilian use and scaled up enormously. Other designs, such as the molten salt reactor, were left for later, if ever.
A molten salt reactor differs from a conventional nuclear reactor in a number of ways: starting with the fact that it uses nuclear fuel that’s liquid instead of solid. This has profound implications for safety. For example, meltdowns would be a non-issue: fuel is already molten. And if temperatures in the fuel mix get too high for any reason, a plug of frozen salt below the reactor will melt and allow everything to drain into an underground holding tank for safekeeping. Long-lived nuclear waste would also be a non-issue: a chemical system would continuously extract reaction-slowing fission products from the molten fuel, which would allow plutonium and all the other long-half-life fissile isotopes to be completely consumed.
It will take a while for a reactor to be fully operational. Perhaps the biggest and most unpredictable barrier is the public’s ingrained fear about almost anything labeled nuclear. But when it’s finally there, it will be for the better.
Great info, Thanks ! As for consumption ... I remember energy conservation efforts during the 70's ... I still turn off a light when leaving a room so as to not waste energy...just a good habit; that and the fact that my uncle's house burned to the ground because he had every electrical convenience known to man and his kids had everything turned on 24/7. My Dad was a nuclear engineer who built reactors so I respect it as a source of energy but any source has room for improvement and safety.
One of the big costs with EV is I believe (subject to correction by anyone) is that cars charge on 330 amps and buildings here are 110 or 220 so there is a conversion of wiring cost.
"My Dad was a nuclear engineer who built reactors so I respect it as a source of energy but any source has room for improvement and safety."
In the 1980's I worked at the Sizewell B nuclear plant in Suffolk, England......only as a carpenter though.
Interesting read @MacMarty89, I never heard of a molten salt reactor.
Regards,
Jay.
In the 1980's I worked at the Sizewell B nuclear plant in Suffolk, England......only as a carpenter though.
Interesting read @MacMarty89, I never heard of a molten salt reactor.
Regards,
Jay.