America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 20 months ago by RayR. 223 replies replies.
5 Pages<12345>
Electric Cars in California
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
tailgater Offline
#101 Posted: Thu, Sep 22 2022, 7:05 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
Ok, so you don't believe that car emissions are a problem that needs to be fixed. Do you think is a a govmut plot to endlessly subsides EV manufactures like we do now with oil and gas production? Because I would trade one for the other.

Very few people drive more than 300 miles a day round trip. And you can get another 200 miles of range from a super charger in the 15-20 minutes that you would use for a break after 3-4 hours in the car. But the point is that the occasional long trip is not what we are talking about.

YouTube has lots of people chronicling long road trips in EV's. And while it will be a lot better in years to come, they do as well as ICE vehicles in practical use - go have a look.

Honestly, the technology is farther along than most people know. And every major manufacturer is killing themselves to get into this - because it is not just better - it really is our future.

Face it, if it were not for govmut mandates you would be driving a car that got 11 gallons to the mile and used leaded gas.





I get that people don't like change - or guvmut mandates.
But do your homework on this - it's worth it.


Dude, it's not 300 miles every day. But when you need it, it's there.
I own a pickup truck. I don't use the bed in it every day. Doesn't mean I shouldn't own it. Or have the government justify taking it away.

Here's an idea: You like EV. You can buy one and drive it. Hell, buy 2.
Why do you feel compelled to make everyone else own one as well?
That's pretty fuqed up dude.
tailgater Offline
#102 Posted: Thu, Sep 22 2022, 7:12 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
The govmut mandate to move us from incandescent light bulbs to LED did not cure the energy waist or fix the environment. But it helped and we all get lighting that lasts longer and is cheaper to use.

Shifting to EV’s in the next 10-20 year will not fix it, but it is a large help. Arguably 1/4 of emission given that industry also moving to EV’s. Walmart, Amazon and many other have vehicles on order and are making the change.

Wind and solar have proven to be cheaper way to generate power, and with localized storage will be a real path to cleaning things up.



Besides all of that, EV’s are way better than ICE in most every comparison.
Of course people would have to look into it to know….


There you go again. Trying to justify idiotic government mandates. With lies. Or at best with inaccuracies.

The mandate away from incandescent bulbs was a switch to compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL).
And we all now know that CFL is worse for the environment than incandescent bulbs when you consider the soup to nuts lifespan. They're a friggen hazard to dispose of. They're only made overseas in third world countries. And they are a sucky product to begin with. They take 10 minutes to reach brightness.

LED is an improvement, for sure. But you didn't know that back when you embraced the gubment mandate, did you?

The mandate to EVs is more similar to the CFL cluster fuq than it is to improving MPG.

So just stop it.

This mandate, like MOST mandates, are just a means to force an agenda that defies logic or reason or common sense.

Your mileage may vary.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#103 Posted: Thu, Sep 22 2022, 8:17 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,665
Why can't make ants sink?
They're buoy-ant
Brewha Offline
#104 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 9:18 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
tailgater wrote:
Dude, it's not 300 miles every day. But when you need it, it's there.
I own a pickup truck. I don't use the bed in it every day. Doesn't mean I shouldn't own it. Or have the government justify taking it away.

Here's an idea: You like EV. You can buy one and drive it. Hell, buy 2.
Why do you feel compelled to make everyone else own one as well?
That's pretty fuqed up dude.

I did buy an EV. I love it and feel sorry for the peeps that don't have one.

And I did not buy it to "save the environment". It's just a better machine.

What's fuged up is that you choose to "not know" why the mandated are needed.
Brewha Offline
#105 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 9:48 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
tailgater wrote:
There you go again. Trying to justify idiotic government mandates. With lies. Or at best with inaccuracies.

The mandate away from incandescent bulbs was a switch to compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL).
And we all now know that CFL is worse for the environment than incandescent bulbs when you consider the soup to nuts lifespan. They're a friggen hazard to dispose of. They're only made overseas in third world countries. And they are a sucky product to begin with. They take 10 minutes to reach brightness.

LED is an improvement, for sure. But you didn't know that back when you embraced the gubment mandate, did you?

The mandate to EVs is more similar to the CFL cluster fuq than it is to improving MPG.

So just stop it.

This mandate, like MOST mandates, are just a means to force an agenda that defies logic or reason or common sense.

Your mileage may vary.


No, the mandate was to move to more energy efficient lighting. The actual government ban doesn't' go into effect until 2023. But knowing it was coming did spur the industry to develop better solutions. CFL's were early efforts that are now being abandon. So the mandate was a good thing that is working.

The move to zero emission vehicles is spurring all kinds of development and new technologies - right here in the US. In fact the "most American made cars" in the US today are Teslas.



That best part of the mandate (being done to curb pollution) it that people won't be asked politely to "please respect the environment". They won't have the choice - because we are Americans, and most of us don't give a f*ck about the environment. And never will.

It's not that we don't know things need to change - we don't want to know and we don't care. So people make up bullsh1t arguments about how bad pollution mandates are and how "no one knows if pollution is bad". And they belly ache about "my rights" and "freedom". And the absolute favorite of the conservative community: "Science is fake".



We used to put lead in gas - do you understand how bad that is?
Prolly not. And most people didn't give a f*ck.
But I remember all the crying about switching to unleaded - The govmut was "forcing an agenda that defies logic or reason or common sense."
DavidAZ Offline
#106 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 11:07 AM EST
Joined: 06-03-2022
Posts: 2
problem is you can't create any awareness in people with a stagnation mindset. they deny whine cry accuse and refuse to listen.
DrafterX Offline
#107 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 11:12 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
you mean they won't conform to your mindset so they're bad... right..?? Huh
Brewha Offline
#108 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 12:22 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
I think it's just admitting that most people don't give a f*ck, so we have to put some rules in place.

Now businesses, on the other hand, absolutely give a f*ck - about their bottom line.
Why should they spend the money to develop, re-tool, and produce light bulbs that save energy?
Why switch to un-leaded gas or design in catalytic converters?
Because we don't give them a choice.
HockeyDad Offline
#109 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 12:34 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
It’s best to not give businesses or people a choice.
ZRX1200 Offline
#110 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 1:19 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
Sacrifices have to be made when you’re obeying your religion of virtue and corporate donor wishes.
ZRX1200 Offline
#111 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 1:55 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
https://youtu.be/3nS0Fdayj8Y
Sunoverbeach Offline
#112 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 2:01 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,665
Talk is cheap?

Have you ever spoken to a lawyer?
Brewha Offline
#113 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 2:34 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
ZRX1200 wrote:
Sacrifices have to be made when you’re obeying your religion of virtue and corporate donor wishes.

Voice of experience Z?
deadeyedick Online
#114 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 5:37 PM EST
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 17,087
Prediction:

Every one of these old bassturds will have an EV before they die unless they are older than 65 now. I’ m just waiting a few more years for better battery tech and charging times.
Gene363 Offline
#115 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 6:12 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,814
deadeyedick wrote:
Prediction:

Every one of these old bassturds will have an EV before they die unless they are older than 65 now. I’ m just waiting a few more years for better battery tech and charging times.


Me too, we plan to replace my wife's Traverse since she doesn't put that many miles on her vehicle and when we travel I like driving and prefer driving my truck over the Traverse. Funny thing, she wanted the six cllynder Travverse over the four clyinder Chevrolet Equinox, but since we got the EasyGo RX4 golf cart and experianced electric accleration she is willing to give an EV a try.
ZRX1200 Offline
#116 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 7:46 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
The 3.6 V6 Chevy motor is hot trash, right up there with a three valve 5.4 Triton Ford.
tailgater Offline
#117 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 8:41 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
I did buy an EV. I love it and feel sorry for the peeps that don't have one.

And I did not buy it to "save the environment". It's just a better machine.

What's fuged up is that you choose to "not know" why the mandated are needed.



"Why the mandates are needed."
LOL!
You're completely brainwashed. Or is it just being woke?
tailgater Offline
#118 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 8:53 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
No, the mandate was to move to more energy efficient lighting. The actual government ban doesn't' go into effect until 2023. But knowing it was coming did spur the industry to develop better solutions. CFL's were early efforts that are now being abandon. So the mandate was a good thing that is working.

The move to zero emission vehicles is spurring all kinds of development and new technologies - right here in the US. In fact the "most American made cars" in the US today are Teslas.



That best part of the mandate (being done to curb pollution) it that people won't be asked politely to "please respect the environment". They won't have the choice - because we are Americans, and most of us don't give a f*ck about the environment. And never will.

It's not that we don't know things need to change - we don't want to know and we don't care. So people make up bullsh1t arguments about how bad pollution mandates are and how "no one knows if pollution is bad". And they belly ache about "my rights" and "freedom". And the absolute favorite of the conservative community: "Science is fake".



We used to put lead in gas - do you understand how bad that is?
Prolly not. And most people didn't give a f*ck.
But I remember all the crying about switching to unleaded - The govmut was "forcing an agenda that defies logic or reason or common sense."


I hope you realize that government actions have virtually zero relation to their effectiveness.

Look at the E85 gasoline: Take dino gas and add 15% ethanol. Corn is renewable, so that's good. Right?
Novels have been written regarding the poor planning on this one. Start with the lower mpg that offsets the assumed savings and go from there.

Now look at the CA initiative. A state that can't power their current electric needs is mandating electric vehicles. And unless the liberals in LaLA land embrace nuclear soon, they won't have enough juice to do it. Remember this: all the solar and wind creates power (albeit at about 40% efficiency) but they can not and do not result in closing fossil fuel plants. They don't even slow down the production of the electricity. Fuel plants need days to reach peak performance. so they remain running. Burning coal or natural gas or whatever. You wouldn't want to have a 3 day stretch of windless clouds during a heat wave, would you?

When electric is superior it will reign supreme.
When something is better. TRULY better. It will replace the old technology.
We didn't need to mandate the Model T.

I fully expect the ICE to be replaced in my lifetime. As an engineer I embrace new technologies.
I've said that many times during our banter, but all you hear is that I'm against the mandates and you assume I must be anti-electric.
You're predictable, and I'm disappointed in that.
Gene363 Offline
#119 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 8:54 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,814
ZRX1200 wrote:
The 3.6 V6 Chevy motor is hot trash, right up there with a three valve 5.4 Triton Ford.


We have a 2016 and GM supposedly fixed it in 2015.
tailgater Offline
#120 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 9:01 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
I think it's just admitting that most people don't give a f*ck, so we have to put some rules in place.

Now businesses, on the other hand, absolutely give a f*ck - about their bottom line.
Why should they spend the money to develop, re-tool, and produce light bulbs that save energy?
Why switch to un-leaded gas or design in catalytic converters?
Because we don't give them a choice.


When cost (or bottom line) is the only factor preventing progress, then you have a point.
That isn't the concern here.
The technology doesn't support your mandate.


Follow the money.
The mandate will result in political coffers making money on "green" initiatives that fail miserably. AFTER their checks get cashed.
We've already played this out very recently. But y'all have short memories. Too bad the woke aren't awake.

tailgater Offline
#121 Posted: Fri, Sep 23 2022, 9:02 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HockeyDad wrote:
It’s best to not give businesses or people a choice.


Hence, mail in ballots.
Brewha Offline
#122 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 12:35 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
tailgater wrote:
I hope you realize that government actions have virtually zero relation to their effectiveness.

Look at the E85 gasoline: Take dino gas and add 15% ethanol. Corn is renewable, so that's good. Right?
Novels have been written regarding the poor planning on this one. Start with the lower mpg that offsets the assumed savings and go from there.

Now look at the CA initiative. A state that can't power their current electric needs is mandating electric vehicles. And unless the liberals in LaLA land embrace nuclear soon, they won't have enough juice to do it. Remember this: all the solar and wind creates power (albeit at about 40% efficiency) but they can not and do not result in closing fossil fuel plants. They don't even slow down the production of the electricity. Fuel plants need days to reach peak performance. so they remain running. Burning coal or natural gas or whatever. You wouldn't want to have a 3 day stretch of windless clouds during a heat wave, would you?

When electric is superior it will reign supreme.
When something is better. TRULY better. It will replace the old technology.
We didn't need to mandate the Model T.

I fully expect the ICE to be replaced in my lifetime. As an engineer I embrace new technologies.
I've said that many times during our banter, but all you hear is that I'm against the mandates and you assume I must be anti-electric.
You're predictable, and I'm disappointed in that.


I am surprised to read that you are an engineer. That said, good for you - it’s a fine profession.

I did not assume you were for or against EV’s. I disagree with your statement that the technology is not ready and that is is not superior.

How well mandates work says nothing about how or if they are needed. Seems clear to me that they are needed.
How would you recommend we get companies to build clean vehicles and get people to buy them?
Trust companies to be environmentally responsible and the average Joe to “do the right thing”?

California is leading us in embracing clean power production. You may well thumb you nose at them, but at least they have a plan and are doing something. And no one technology is going to fix the pollution problem. It will take decades and lots of different things - including mandates.
Brewha Offline
#123 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 12:40 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
tailgater wrote:
When cost (or bottom line) is the only factor preventing progress, then you have a point.
That isn't the concern here.
The technology doesn't support your mandate.


Follow the money.
The mandate will result in political coffers making money on "green" initiatives that fail miserably. AFTER their checks get cashed.
We've already played this out very recently. But y'all have short memories. Too bad the woke aren't awake.


What qualifies you to assess if the technology is there?
Or - who is feeding you that crap?
BuckyB93 Offline
#124 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 2:36 PM EST
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,188
Brewha wrote:
I am surprised to read that you are an engineer. That said, good for you - it’s a fine profession.

I did not assume you were for or against EV’s. I disagree with your statement that the technology is not ready and that is is not superior.

How well mandates work says nothing about how or if they are needed. Seems clear to me that they are needed.
How would you recommend we get companies to build clean vehicles and get people to buy them?
Trust companies to be environmentally responsible and the average Joe to “do the right thing”?

California is leading us in embracing clean power production. You may well thumb you nose at them, but at least they have a plan and are doing something. And no one technology is going to fix the pollution problem. It will take decades and lots of different things - including mandates.


I find this rather funny. Leading us in embracing clean power production? Bwahhhaaahhaa.

CA is a leach. It can't produce enough energy to support their own population. That state is the country's leading importer of electricity. 25% of their electricity comes from other states. Once they get self sufficient, then they can come back and preach.

"California’s net electricity imports were the largest in the country at 70.8 million megawatthours (MWh), or 25% of the state’s total electricity supply."

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46156

But, yeah, let's not let facts get in the way of things.

I say we cut off all electricity and fresh water that CA imports from other states and let them try to live on their utopian steaming $hit hole that they created.
ZRX1200 Offline
#125 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 2:48 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
and they steal water.
BuckyB93 Offline
#126 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 3:00 PM EST
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,188
I'm not anti electric cars or "green energy". At this time and in the near future, they have their place and time for niche areas and opportunities but full force mandates before the technology can support it is just stupid.
BuckyB93 Offline
#127 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 3:04 PM EST
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,188
Brewha wrote:
What qualifies you to assess if the technology is there?
Or - who is feeding you that crap?


These same statements can apply to your arguments.
Brewha Offline
#128 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 3:36 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
BuckyB93 wrote:
I'm not anti electric cars or "green energy". At this time and in the near future, they have their place and time for niche areas and opportunities but full force mandates before the technology can support it is just stupid.

If I were to put a pin in “stupid” on this issue, it would be people suggesting that the technology cannot support it when it goes into effect.
Brewha Offline
#129 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 3:41 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
BuckyB93 wrote:
I find this rather funny. Leading us in embracing clean power production? Bwahhhaaahhaa.

CA is a leach. It can't produce enough energy to support their own population. That state is the country's leading importer of electricity. 25% of their electricity comes from other states. Once they get self sufficient, then they can come back and preach.

"California’s net electricity imports were the largest in the country at 70.8 million megawatthours (MWh), or 25% of the state’s total electricity supply."

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46156

But, yeah, let's not let facts get in the way of things.

I say we cut off all electricity and fresh water that CA imports from other states and let them try to live on their utopian steaming $hit hole that they created.

The fact I was sighting is that they have the 1st successful pilot program of the Virtual Power Plant. And you might be surprised that most people think of California as leading the fight for lower emissions - no, really. Just ask around….
BuckyB93 Offline
#130 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 3:48 PM EST
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,188
98.2% of the country cannot support the technology or infrastructure needed for full e-vehicles adoption. Technology and infrastructure aside (probably a decade or more away), if your car breaks down, where do you go to get it fixed?

P.S. you missed a nine!
Sunoverbeach Offline
#131 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 4:09 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,665
Why doesn't the sun go to college?

It already has millions of degrees
ZRX1200 Offline
#132 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 4:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
I think if you polled the US voters a landslide would say they want as much green energy as possible that makes sense. Problem is the far left is made up of people profiting off the extreme push and people who are zealots of the new religion. A conversation isn’t going to happen when one side has declared war some time ago.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#133 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 5:16 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,665
CA is leading in embracing clean energy, but they're not doing it successfully. They show it being sufficient day to day, in real life conditions, for a tad bit more than a few seconds then I could see it as more of a current possibility. Pun intended

Elon is leading in embracing Mars colonization, but I'm not strapping my happy azz to a SpaceX rocket next week and hoping for the best
MACS Offline
#134 Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2022, 5:41 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
tailgater wrote:
"Why the mandates are needed."
LOL!
You're completely brainwashed. Or is it just being woke?


Same f--kwit that wanted to "mandate" a shot that has proven very ineffective.

Recap: No shot... got covid... over it in 2 days... never got it again... don't wear a mask, social distance or give 2 fkn sheits.
tailgater Offline
#135 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 9:03 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
I am surprised to read that you are an engineer. That said, good for you - it’s a fine profession.

I did not assume you were for or against EV’s. I disagree with your statement that the technology is not ready and that is is not superior.

How well mandates work says nothing about how or if they are needed. Seems clear to me that they are needed.
How would you recommend we get companies to build clean vehicles and get people to buy them?
Trust companies to be environmentally responsible and the average Joe to “do the right thing”?

California is leading us in embracing clean power production. You may well thumb you nose at them, but at least they have a plan and are doing something. And no one technology is going to fix the pollution problem. It will take decades and lots of different things - including mandates.


You can "disagree" about the current technology, but that doesn't change the facts.
EV's are not able to drive long distances without very long recharge cycles.

Again, look no further than my real life scenario. Drive from Cape Cod to the White Mountains in New Hampshire. Conservatively, it's 200 miles. The average EV gets about 300 miles.
Is a ski resort in the middle of the great white north equipped with an electrical charging station to accommodate a few hundred vehicles?

I had an early mention of super conductivity that was quickly dismissed. But that's what is needed to quickly charge a battery or allow sufficient efficiencies from renewable sources like solar or wind.
Look at all the solar and wind projects across the country. Then look at all the fossil fuel plants that have been closed. Oh, wait. They haven't. Because they can't, lest we expose ourselves to dangerous gaps in supply versus demand hinging on the weather.

It's obvious that you're surprised I'm an engineer (by degree, not by predominant job function). You can't accept anything that opposes your own viewpoint, so you think any conflicting technical information must be false.

You think that what works for YOU should be mandated for ALL.

It's a character flaw that you try to hide by using examples of successful mandates of the past. Mandates that addressed the lone issue of costs. When technology was available and cost of conversion the only issue.
Baby steps work better than outright bans.
Tell car companies that a certain percent of their fleet must be EV or hybrid. Don't outlaw ICE.
America isn't supposed to be home to freedom of (government mandated) choice.

But that is very obviously what you want.


tailgater Offline
#136 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 9:09 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
MACS wrote:
Same f--kwit that wanted to "mandate" a shot that has proven very ineffective.

Recap: No shot... got covid... over it in 2 days... never got it again... don't wear a mask, social distance or give 2 fkn sheits.


I was talking to a friend last night at a party.
Their cousin is a nurse who was terminated because she wouldn't vax.
She was breastfeeding her first child and didn't want to get jabbed. So she was fired.
Even though she worked through the early scary days. Risked her life. Now fired.

It is despicable.
tailgater Offline
#137 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 9:35 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
From the Chevy EV site:

Three charging options:
1. Standard household outlet: 4 miles per hour of charging. (not a typo)
2. 240V with current amp service (appliance outlet): 26 miles per hour of charging.
3. 240V 80amp set up: 39 miles per hour of charging.

So with the optimum set up you would charge up for 60 minutes and then drive less than 40 miles before you need to recharge again. Assuming you find a high amp charge station on your route.

80 amps.
Most households have what? 200 amps?
80 is big chunk of that.

And what about businesses? 200 cars in the lot. Can the grid handle that kind of amperage?

EV's are a great option for homes with specific driving habits. Folks I know LOVE their EV's.
But they all have a gas car as well.

Brewha wants to take away that option. Eliminate the choice. By government force.
It's the woke thing to do.
Abrignac Offline
#138 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 10:25 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,273
tailgater wrote:
From the Chevy EV site:

Three charging options:
1. Standard household outlet: 4 miles per hour of charging. (not a typo)
2. 240V with current amp service (appliance outlet): 26 miles per hour of charging.
3. 240V 80amp set up: 39 miles per hour of charging.

So with the optimum set up you would charge up for 60 minutes and then drive less than 40 miles before you need to recharge again. Assuming you find a high amp charge station on your route.

80 amps.
Most households have what? 200 amps?
80 is big chunk of that.

And what about businesses? 200 cars in the lot. Can the grid handle that kind of amperage?

EV's are a great option for homes with specific driving habits. Folks I know LOVE their EV's.
But they all have a gas car as well.

Brewha wants to take away that option. Eliminate the choice. By government force.
It's the woke thing to do.





That is correct. Most homes have 200 amp service panels. Costs a couple thousand to upgrade. But, I don’t know of any power grid in the US that could accommodate a 50% increase in demand which is what it would take to power a household charging just one EV. If we mandate out all fossil fuel vehicles then we’re talking a demand increase of at least 100% or more considering most households regularly operate AT LEAST two vehicles.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
Abrignac Offline
#139 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 10:28 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,273
Brewha wrote:


California is leading us off the cliff. You may well thumb you nose at them and you would be correct to do so.


FIFY
Brewha Offline
#140 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 11:17 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
BuckyB93 wrote:
98.2% of the country cannot support the technology or infrastructure needed for full e-vehicles adoption. Technology and infrastructure aside (probably a decade or more away), if your car breaks down, where do you go to get it fixed?

P.S. you missed a nine!

99% of the country cannot have EV’s because they hasn’t been built yet. Again, we are taking long tears direction - no throwing w switch.

CA’s mandate goes into effect in 13 years - and you can still by cars that use gas (PHEV).

I get min fixed at the dealer service center in Dallas (near to my office). Of course if I had a Ford, I’d prolly go to them.
HockeyDad Offline
#141 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 11:19 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
tailgater wrote:
I was talking to a friend last night at a party.
Their cousin is a nurse who was terminated because she wouldn't vax.
She was breastfeeding her first child and didn't want to get jabbed. So she was fired.
Even though she worked through the early scary days. Risked her life. Now fired.

It is despicable.


There once was a time when they were considered heroes.
Brewha Offline
#142 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 11:19 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
Sunoverbeach wrote:
CA is leading in embracing clean energy, but they're not doing it successfully. They show it being sufficient day to day, in real life conditions, for a tad bit more than a few seconds then I could see it as more of a current possibility. Pun intended

Elon is leading in embracing Mars colonization, but I'm not strapping my happy azz to a SpaceX rocket next week and hoping for the best

No, they are not too successful - they do have a long way to go.

All I’m saying is they are trying.
Brewha Offline
#143 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 11:23 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
MACS wrote:
Same f--kwit that wanted to "mandate" a shot that has proven very ineffective.

Recap: No shot... got covid... over it in 2 days... never got it again... don't wear a mask, social distance or give 2 fkn sheits.

I find choice of the term f—kwit humorously ironic.

Thanks for the laugh.
Brewha Offline
#144 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 11:43 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
tailgater wrote:
You can "disagree" about the current technology, but that doesn't change the facts.
EV's are not able to drive long distances without very long recharge cycles.

Again, look no further than my real life scenario. Drive from Cape Cod to the White Mountains in New Hampshire. Conservatively, it's 200 miles. The average EV gets about 300 miles.
Is a ski resort in the middle of the great white north equipped with an electrical charging station to accommodate a few hundred vehicles?

I had an early mention of super conductivity that was quickly dismissed. But that's what is needed to quickly charge a battery or allow sufficient efficiencies from renewable sources like solar or wind.
Look at all the solar and wind projects across the country. Then look at all the fossil fuel plants that have been closed. Oh, wait. They haven't. Because they can't, lest we expose ourselves to dangerous gaps in supply versus demand hinging on the weather.

It's obvious that you're surprised I'm an engineer (by degree, not by predominant job function). You can't accept anything that opposes your own viewpoint, so you think any conflicting technical information must be false.

You think that what works for YOU should be mandated for ALL.

It's a character flaw that you try to hide by using examples of successful mandates of the past. Mandates that addressed the lone issue of costs. When technology was available and cost of conversion the only issue.
Baby steps work better than outright bans.
Tell car companies that a certain percent of their fleet must be EV or hybrid. Don't outlaw ICE.
America isn't supposed to be home to freedom of (government mandated) choice.

But that is very obviously what you want.


There won’t be a few hundred EV’s at the ski resort because it’s 2022. But new things get built all the time. They added chargers at my grocery store - even at TopGolf….

My car can charge up to 200 miles of range it 15 minutes at a supercharge - they a 3 phase 480 volt chargers.
Does 15 minutes qualify as a “very long recharge cycle”?

I agree - power plants should not be close before their replacements on on line. Sound engineering there.

Me hide a character flaw??? I never hide them Sir - they are numerous in in full view for all to see.

I think the CA mandate is a reasonable baby step: 13 year before anything happens, you can still buy PEVS that use gas, you can own, operate and fetish ICE - just no new car sales.

“Freedom” - oh god - seems anytime someone want to justify something stupid they cry “freedom”, then pizz on the leg the the guy next to them.
Brewha Offline
#145 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 11:59 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
tailgater wrote:
From the Chevy EV site:

Three charging options:
1. Standard household outlet: 4 miles per hour of charging. (not a typo)
2. 240V with current amp service (appliance outlet): 26 miles per hour of charging.
3. 240V 80amp set up: 39 miles per hour of charging.

So with the optimum set up you would charge up for 60 minutes and then drive less than 40 miles before you need to recharge again. Assuming you find a high amp charge station on your route.

80 amps.
Most households have what? 200 amps?
80 is big chunk of that.

And what about businesses? 200 cars in the lot. Can the grid handle that kind of amperage?

EV's are a great option for homes with specific driving habits. Folks I know LOVE their EV's.
But they all have a gas car as well.

Brewha wants to take away that option. Eliminate the choice. By government force.
It's the woke thing to do.



Are you sure you went to an engineering school? Because your above problem is not, well…engineered.

Most people charge at home and don’t need to get “gas” on the road. Now in the future a Bucky’s or a Love’s truck stop is going to look a bit different. In year to come.

I have 150 amp service at home. I use a 30 amp/240 volt plug in the garage to get a full tank every night.
If I need more/faster I would go to a 480 volt super charge and get a cup of coffee. Doesn’t happen often. In fact it’s never happened.
Brewha Offline
#146 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 12:05 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
Abrignac wrote:
That is correct. Most homes have 200 amp service panels. Costs a couple thousand to upgrade. But, I don’t know of any power grid in the US that could accommodate a 50% increase in demand which is what it would take to power a household charging just one EV. If we mandate out all fossil fuel vehicles then we’re talking a demand increase of at least 100% or more considering most households regularly operate AT LEAST two vehicles.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

50% increase? 100% increase?

Someone did not do their math home work……

But go ahead and just make sh1t up. Cause your FREEDOM in in the line!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#147 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 12:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
Notice who is screaming for mandates yet screeching freedom?
Brewha Offline
#148 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 12:33 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
Bitting repartee as always dmv….
DrMaddVibe Offline
#149 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 1:11 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
I see what I see and say what I see.
BuckyB93 Offline
#150 Posted: Sun, Sep 25 2022, 1:12 PM EST
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,188
Sounds French to me
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<12345>
Back to Top