GM is pulling back on EVs

[K4fxd]

I paid $1.88 per day that month. so one charge is $6.79.

I don't know what your KW rate is but lets say it is .12 To charge that battery would require 99 Kw according to Burkey so round up to 100 and it is $12 to charge the car at home.

So, the charge itself is 54.18KW.

So if we use 54Kw to charge the battery it is still going to take 60 to 65 Kw due to losses. lets use 65 to err on the high side and it costs 7.80 for a 10 to 80% charge on a 77Kw battery charging at home. How much will these fast chargers cost?
.50c per Kw sounds fair so $32.50 for this 10 to 80% charge on the road.

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

Does the average person know just how much power this is? Consider a charging station with 20 chargers. All chargers fast charging. This is just an insane amount of power. Where will it come from? That would be what, 20,000 windmills? maybe more? That is just one charging station. That is 7,000,000 KW being pulled from the grid.

A single metric ton of coal can produce up to 1,927 kilowatt-hours of electricity. By comparison, natural gas can only produce 99 kWh per 1,000 cubic feet, and a barrel of fuel oil can produce up to 578 kWh.
https://justenergy.com/blog/coal-consumption-in-energy/

The average all electric house pulls about 30 KWh per day.

So now lets add charging stations every 50 miles along interstate highways...............

Now someone please prove to me my math is wrong, because it is not sustainable at these rates.

Yes, it’s a LOT of power.

But, you’re math is off.

The average wind turbine produces roughly 2,000 kw’s per hour. That’s 6 cars charged per wind turbine, per hour (assuming the draw is in fact 350Kw from start to finish, which doesn't even seem plausible).

Phrased differently….
Consider this -

“Our most recent project is the 64-turbine Mt Mercer Wind Farm just outside of Ballarat, which produces enough energy to power the entire Ballarat population – that’s around 80,000 households.”

That‘s less than ONE turbine per 1,000 households. Even if triple the demand you only need 3 turbines per 1,000 households.

Your numbers don’t work.

 

[Burkey]

It is 350,000 watts being drawn continuous. 350,000 watts being drawn for 1 hour is 350KWh. . Figure 20 min run time per car should allow 2 cars per hour to be charged per charger.

If it is not charging at the 350Kw rate it would take longer than the 18 min?

I thin we misunderstand each other (again).
Im saying that the power consumed by the charger is quite clearly DRASTICALLY MORE than the battery can possibly consume in that time. So, either the charger is horribly inefficient OR they’re not charging at 350 kw for the full 18 minutes ( which seems VERY likely).

You can’t cram 100Kw into that battery. Simple.
They aren’t talking Kw/h. They’re talking Kw.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; the battery will charge from 10% to 80% of the battery total capacity. So, the charge itself is 54.18KW. I still don't see your numbers adding up either if 105 KW is consumed. That is twice the charge by my count. At 77.4 KW total for the battery is 27 KW more energy than the battery can hold.

Exactly. That’s why I said that it’s unlikely that the charger is using the full 350Kw for the entire duration. It would surely be tapering off toward the end of the charge.

 

[K4fxd]

"When charging at 350kW with the ultra-speed charging function, the battery can be charged from 10 percent to 80 percent in just 18 minutes. "

That is from the link.

So it charges in 18 min when charging at the 350kw rate. If you reduce the charging power you increase the time. Yes most chargers start out at a high rate then taper off, but this is supposedly a new battery tech.

 

[sk47]

I don't know what your KW rate is but lets say it is .12 To charge that battery would require 99 Kw according to Burkey so round up to 100 and it is $12 to charge the car at home.


So if we use 54Kw to charge the battery it is still going to take 60 to 65 Kw due to losses. lets use 65 to err on the high side and it costs 7.80 for a 10 to 80% charge on a 77Kw battery charging at home. How much will these fast chargers cost?
.50c per Kw sounds fair so $32.50 for this 10 to 80% charge on the road.

Hello; I calculate my rate at 12.55 cents/KW. So you are very close. I get and understand the cost when charging at home is a good deal if you do not count other needed expenses.
I will have to pay more for the EV to begin with and will have to pay for a home charger. If I get an EV with incentives from the government, you get to help me with the cost. If i get an EV without the incentives I may pay another $7500 more.

Back years ago, I got my 2001 Sentra. A buddy got a 2002 VW Jetta Diesel. For a time I was getting near 36+ MPG and he got around 48 MPG +. Seems he had me beat but a lot of the time we were close to even. He paid a lot more for the diesel to start with and over the years generally had to pay more for the fuel. I now get around 34 MPG which i think may be due to the 10% or so ethanol in my gas.

I do not know exactly how to figure a break-even point on cost with an EV. It will take some miles of charging at home to have a chance to come out ahead. If I had to charge at commercial chargers, I would never come out ahead. Of course, all depends on the cost of electricity and the cost of gasoline.
I realize I cannot predict the future, but soon enough electric power will be in high demand without the supply to match. I cannot know but do guess the cost per KWH will have to go up.

 

[sk47]

"When charging at 350kW with the ultra-speed charging function, the battery can be charged from 10 percent to 80 percent in just 18 minutes. "

That is from the link.

So it charges in 18 min when charging at the 350kw rate. If you reduce the charging power you increase the time. Yes most chargers start out at a high rate then taper off, but this is supposedly a new battery tech.

Hello; I get this is new battery tech, so i wonder if this very fast charge rate also will shorten battery life?

 

[sk47]

I don't know what your KW rate is but lets say it is .12 To charge that battery would require 99 Kw according to Burkey so round up to 100 and it is $12 to charge the car at home.


So if we use 54Kw to charge the battery it is still going to take 60 to 65 Kw due to losses. lets use 65 to err on the high side and it costs 7.80 for a 10 to 80% charge on a 77Kw battery charging at home. How much will these fast chargers cost?
.50c per Kw sounds fair so $32.50 for this 10 to 80% charge on the road.

Hello; I think I get the loses part. To run a charger uses up some of the energy itself. Maybe only heat generated by all the energy flowing so fast. Like an extension cord getting hot with a large draw. I wonder. Do the heavy duty chargers have cooling fans?

 

[Burkey]

"When charging at 350kW with the ultra-speed charging function, the battery can be charged from 10 percent to 80 percent in just 18 minutes. "

That is from the link.

So it charges in 18 min when charging at the 350kw rate. If you reduce the charging power you increase the time. Yes most chargers start out at a high rate then taper off, but this is supposedly a new battery tech.

Well yes, obviously you increase the charging time when you reduce the PEAK rate of charging. I don’t think anybody is disputing that.
I‘m simply saying that the charger isn’t consuming 100Kw in the process of delivering a 50 odd kilowatt charge, meaning that the charger isn’t operating at 350Kw from start to finish.
Yes?

 

[Burkey]

Hello; I get this is new battery tech, so i wonder if this very fast charge rate also will shorten battery life?

That was the first question I had. I would imagine they wouldn’t be offering it if it was going to cause them significant warranty issues.

 

[Burkey]

I cannot know but do guess the cost per KWH will have to go up.

Why would you assume that? We’ve already discussed that renewables are cheaper to produce than fossil fuels, with the added benefit that you aren’t at the mercy of OPEC and their artificial control of the market.

 

[Burkey]

@martinjlm
Can you please provide some clarity around charger efficiency? I’m getting some WILDLY conflicting numbers from the webs. 10-15% loss seems to be “mostly” agreed with some outliers.

 

[K4fxd]

10-15% loss seems to be “mostly” agreed with some outliers.

That is about right, plus add pack losses about another 10%.

 

[sk47]

Why would you assume that? We’ve already discussed that renewables are cheaper to produce than fossil fuels, with the added benefit that you aren’t at the mercy of OPEC and their artificial control of the market.

Hello; It is not just the cost of making and installing the solar, wind or other "green" point sources of electricity although that cost will have to be borne by the consumers/taxpayers. The grid itself will have to be enhanced/improved to carry the extra power which will have to be required.
I will not stake any claim that this is anywhere correct but think I have seen numbers like $50 TRILLION in the USA.
EDIT- did a quick search 4.5 to 6.7 trillion came up.

You have somehow decided renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. I think i know what you refer to, but that is leaving out a large part of the overall picture.

To the point of being at the mercy of players and artificial control of markets. If we actually do away with our already in place coal, natural gas and oil power generation plants we will then be reliant on the "renewables" infrastructure. Where are the greatest percentage of these "green" bits of equipment made?? Do you actually think we will get a better master in them than OPEC?

 

[K4fxd]

Do you actually think we will get a better master in them than OPEC?

We have plenty of oil, coal and natural gas right here in the USA. We do not need to depend on any other country for our energy needs.

Can't say more because it is POLITICS

Sponsored