This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Electric cars?

Would you buy an electric car?

  • Already own one

    Votes: 10 5.1%

  • Yes - would definitely buy

    Votes: 43 21.7%

  • Yes - preferred over petrol car if price/power/convenience similar

    Votes: 78 39.4%

  • Maybe - preference for neither, only concerned with costs etc

    Votes: 38 19.2%

  • No - prefer petrol car even if electric car has same price, power and convenience

    Votes: 25 12.6%

  • No - would never buy one

    Votes: 14 7.1%
  • Total voters
    198
Jump to new
It's much much more efficient to burn fuel in a power station than it is to burn it in an internal combustion engine I know that. Something like 4x as much iirc.

I have no idea what's necessary to build the charge stations but I have a friend that's an electrical engineer for one of the power companies so I could ask him if you like?

Charging stations also obviously depends on battery tech - the better batteries get, the less the stations will be needed.
 

Sure; ask your mate when you get time: of what he thinks the electrical capacity requirements will be for the USA to go 100% EV. I think he will likely say that we are talking TWs of electricity and trillions of dollars also. Also that we are talking hundreds of nuclear powerplants, if we go nuclear.

I agree that it is more efficient to burn in a power station; however we still need build greater capacity into our transmission networks. We lose around ~5% per 1000Km in transmission. Then if we go renewable, we would need to build large scale battery storage, more electricity lost there to charge and recharge the large scale batteries. Then we need to build the recharge stations; not very productive for the economy when people have to wait 30 mins to recharge their car; how long will the line be at the recharge stations?

I think hydrogen vehicles will definitely challenge EVs this decade. Petrol stations can be converted, LNG ships and oil tankers might be able to be converted, no need for transmission lines for 1000s of Kms.

I think it is a smoother transition to go from a crude oil economy to a hydrogen economy; rather than a crude oil transport economy to a full electric transport economy.
 
Chronos-Plutus said:
I think it is a smoother transition to go from a crude oil economy to a hydrogen economy; rather than an crude oil transport economy to a full electric transport economy.
Click to expand...
This is what I was thinking. I'm not seeing a rush into ev infrastructure. Hydrogen presents its own problems. I'm not against EV if they get a decent ute out I'd probably buy it. But I'm not sold on it becoming mainstream any time soon.

The figures are interesting to peel back.
 
over9k said:
EV's don't have to use renewables though. If electricity is cheaper than burning fuel, that's enough.

Why are we acting as if EV's and renewables are mutual inclusives?
Click to expand...

because he has an idea in his head that unless an alternative is 100% free of fossil fuels then there is no point using it, even if that alternative makes far better use of our fossil fuels resources while simultaneously allowing us to incrementally add more renewables over time.
 
If battery tech can get good enough to hold about 12 hours of charge then everything is sweet from there on out - it's a full day's driving and you then just charge the thing overnight wherever you are stopped.

Electric cars are already good enough to do this as the work, kids sport, visit grandparents etc etc commuter.

It's battery life that matters - just charge the thing with a bloody wall socket overnight if the batteries can carry enough juice. Or even dual circuits if you run something from another circuit.

This can't possibly be difficult to do as long as the batteries are good enough.
 

Sure; hydrogen has its own problems also; however I think the problems are more easily resolved in juxtaposition to electric vehicles.

I am not against EVs either, I just don't see nations building also the required infrastructure this century to assist with the 100% EV transition.

What happens if we have a serious grid meltdown? What if we have a serious cyber attack that shuts down our electrical grid for days. We will have people stuck in the middle of roads across the country.

Let's have a bit of think before running off to Alice In Wonderland with some other posters on here.
 

You still aren't getting it, you have no idea what's involved and you don't understand the systems and processes. We will need to build more gas and coal power stations and run transmission networks across the country.

People buy a Tesla, and they think they know better than everyone.
 
Not being funny here:

Let's say there's a vehicle with batteries that take 20 hours of running to discharge. Couldn't we just plug it into a 240v wall socket to charge it?

Worse case, run two connections from two different circuits?

Even worse case, get 3 phase power installed (which is pretty cheap to get done really) and charge with that?

Any hotel or whatever you're staying at will already have a baller electricity connection anyway so it's not like they couldn't just put charging stations in the carpark with relative ease. In fact, I think some already do?
 

this is simply a case where you don’t know what you don’t know, and you haven’t shown interest in understanding the details.

you also seem to think that requiring investment in new infrastructure would be bad, when in reality it’s a user pays system, and consumers would be saving money while at the same time owners of electrical generation would be making better returns on existing investment due to higher utilization rates, and have some good options to make more investments.

———-
But as I said I have made a profitable career understanding the finer details of situations, and this topic I understand very well, where as you clearly don’t.

Your opinion is based on a few big misconceptions, I tried to talk you through it, but you aren’t interested so you will just have to wait and see.
 

Mate, I have been investing in the electricity, Gas and oil industries for 20 years, I have a pretty firm grasp on it.

I also have been studying the progress of the electric car industry for over 10 years before I bought my Tesla.

it’s something I have been interested in for years, and spent countless hours researching and learning for both personal and investment reasons.

but yeah, just go ahead and assume I don’t know what I am talking about just because I pointed out your assumptions were wrong, I guess that’s easier than trying to understand the details .haha
 
What he actually showed was the amount of energy that is still going to be required, when electric vehicles are mainstream, which even by VC's comments is at least what is currently required, therefore the problem is still more immense than some seem to be able to get their head around.
So that banter actually showed something, two intelligent individuals debating an issue IMO.
It is a far better debate, than two poorly informed individuals, giving media garbage as the basis for informed comment..
________________
basilio said:
Your comments on my post about how much land is required to produce all the US were interesting. It certainly wasn't mentioned in the body of the story but, as you pointed out, in the reference.
Click to expand...
Well considering it was the driving argument of the post, one would have thought you would have read it, as it was you who posted it.

This actually supports my last statement, about lack of understanding of the size of the issue.
In your previous post you seemed to have forgotten molten salt storage, which as I said was the flag bearer for renewables, yet now people are saying look at the advancements in PV panels and wind.
Shows we aren't moving anywhere near fast enough in producing devices with large scale grunt.
Anyway we have been through this in the future of power generation thread, so pointless going over well trodden ground.
 
Conversion to 100% EV's will happen over a long period of time, maybe 100 years, and maybe other technologies will come in over that time, so I think it's a bit pointless to calculate electricity requirements based on current technology because it's unlikely that that technology will be the only one used when fossil fuels finally run out. We may even have cracked the fusion issue by that time, so that throws everything on its head.

Otherwise, apart from the personality clashes, this is an interesting thread. Keep up the good work lads !
 

1. Well you can think what you like; it means nothing to my life.

2. You haven't tried to talk anyone through anything. You have deliberately tried to derail this thread, trying tell everyone that because you have a couple of million that makes you know more. Sorry, no it doesn't.

3. You don't understand this topic well, you only think that you do. You have no idea of capital expenditure, stranded assets, electrical capacity requirements, and so on. You only know what your Tesla brochure has told you.
 
Let's take the edge off here for a moment:

Can someone tell me why my whole "plug it into the charging stations in the hotel carpark" scenario won't come to pass? The hotel already has a beefy power connection, so just flick them a few extra bucks, plug it in, and have a fully charged car in the morning?

Same goes for just plugging it into the wall of your house's garage, worst case getting 3 phase electricity installed? Battery tech is already good enough for a commuting, runabout etc car?

I just don't see how much really needs to be done at all if we can get battery tech to the point of being able to do a day trip in one charge.
 

If you have been investing for 20 years, and you still have issues grasping basics like capital expenditure, stranded assets, electrical capacity; then it is akin to winning the lotto.

My final assumptions aren't wrong. We are talking about TWs of electricity and trillions of dollars in the USA to transition to 100% EV.
 

Perhaps Value Collector can help you; he has been investing for 20 years.
 
over9k said:
Not being funny here:

Couldn't we just plug it into a 240v wall socket to charge it?
Click to expand...

Yep, Off course. But the nay sayers want you to think that we will need billions of new chargers installed (mean while building and replacing tanks And pumps at petrol stations etc over the last 10 years probably cost billions Anyway)

My car is literally charging from the 240 Volt outlet in my garage right now, and the power is coming from the sunlight hitting my solar panels.

this is literally the dream people have had for years, but again the nay sayers will try and confuse the issue and talk about coal power etc

 
Chronos-Plutus said:
If you have been investing for 20 years, and you still have issues grasping basics like capital expenditure, stranded assets, electrical capacity;
Click to expand...

I don’t grasp those basics perfectly.

there is no issue with “stranded assets” if the change is going to take 20 years or more, and Those assets still can produce other things.

It’s the same with capital expenditure, off peak charging etc will create higher utilization rates making existing assets more profitable, and there is plenty of capital out there looking for a home earning 10%, and steady demand from charging a vehicle fleet can supply the steady longterm earnings to under write new investments.
 
Value Collector said:
My car is literally charging from the 240 Volt outlet in my garage right now, and the power is coming from the sunlight hitting my solar panels.

this is literally the dream people have had for years.

View attachment 105955 View attachment 105956
Click to expand...
That's really cool. Looks like standard 10 amp 240v power too? Or are you up to 15 amp?

What's the ratio of time charging:time running? It obviously takes a lot more than 2.4kw (or 3.6kw if you have 15 amp) to move a car.

Also, do they have a 3 phase charging option?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...