GM is pulling back on EVs

[K4fxd]

Erm…nope. The battery size makes no difference to the peak load the vehicle presents to the grid,

Time charging matters. Battery cars are a phase, they are not the future.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

You are right, the PHEV does suffer from all the failings of a BEV except it can run and be charged by it's ICE engine.

Most PHEV's have smaller batteries than a true BEV so the hit to the grid will be less.
Hydrogen or another type of fuel cell will be the future. If we must have battery cars mandated they might as well be hybrids.

Erm…nope. The battery size makes no difference to the peak load the vehicle presents to the grid, in the same way that the size of your fuel tank makes no difference to how much fuel you consume or the speed at which the pump dispenses it.

I see hybrids as a stop-gap measure while we wait for better battery chemistry (longer range/lighter/cheaper/less hazardous blah blah)

PHEV’s have their place, but arguing that they’re not subject to MOST of the same “potential” issues as a BEV is disingenuous at best.

Hello; Nice try but K4fxd is correct. The total amount of energy pulled from the grid will make a big difference between a BEV and a plug in hybrid. Been a few years since i read up on hybrids and plug in hybrids so here is a chance to jump on my facts.

A hybrid gets 100% of the battery charge from the fuel burned by the ICE. There is less waste of energy because the system can "regenerate" braking energy and perhaps when coasting down hills or to a stop.
Hybrids use to stop charging the battery at something around 70%. Do not recall the particular reason but a side benefit of a 70% charge seems to be longer battery life. best i can recall the plug-in version can add all or part of that last 30% of charge.
That 30% of extra charge translates to a bit more battery only driving range. Twenty or thirty miles if I recall anywhere near correct.

So you are partly correct in that the grid will be affected with a plug in. I think K4fxd is more correct in that the batteries are smaller than a pure EV so the overall energy pulled from the grid will be a smaller amount in total.
I also challenge the implied point you (Burkey) make that a plug -in will draw from the grid at the same rate per hour as a true EV. I do not know for sure but figure a plug in can avoid the use of a stage 2 charger. If i ever wind up with a plug-in my plan is to use ordinary outlets. The rate of charge at a 110 outlet will be less than a specific EV charger. I might use a 220 volt outlet of which i already have a few. Higher charge rate but still less than a pure EV. (note- I get that a pure EV can be charged at 110 or 220 volts but this is very slow.)

A plug in hybrid or a regular hybrid do have the issues of a pure EV. The batteries need rare earth minerals. The batteries likely are prone to fires, but perhaps less prone. There is extra weight and so on.
I do suspect hybrids and plug-ins may be less prone to fires than a pure EV. I base this notion of the rate of charge and discharge. A pure EV must spend stored energy at great rates at times. To charge fast enough to be practical they also must charge at high rates. My thinking is the rate at which all that energy is pushed thru the system makes a difference.

Many people could live with a hybrid who cannot get by with a pure EV. Ther is more to say but I will stop here.

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

Sneaky?
Ok, let’s do a test of memory.

You guys claimed that a BEV can easily burn your house down.
Tell me how a PHEV can’t do the same?

You guys claimed that lithium mining is a terrible tragedy.
Tell me how a PHEV is any different.

You guys have said that a BEV can’t drive in 3” of water.
Explain the difference.

You all claimed that the grid would suffer with BEV’s.
Explain to me how a PLUG IN hybrid that typically uses its battery rather than the ICE (because most trips are short enough for the battery to do all the work) is any different.

The only real, FUNCTIONAL difference between the two, is that one has the ability to use an ICE if the trip length requires it.

I’m not making an argument, I’m stating facts. Do with it what you will. Maybe you could push back against PHEV‘s too, now that you know the truth of it.

Thank you for “driving” home important points; no pun intended. For now, ICE>Hybrid>PHEV>BEV. You rock Burkey.

 

[RagmopInKona]

Erm…nope. The battery size makes no difference to the peak load the vehicle presents to the grid, in the same way that the size of your fuel tank makes no difference to how much fuel you consume or the speed at which the pump dispenses it.

I see hybrids as a stop-gap measure while we wait for better battery chemistry (longer range/lighter/cheaper/less hazardous blah blah)

PHEV’s have their place, but arguing that they’re not subject to MOST of the same “potential” issues as a BEV is disingenuous at best.

Splitting straws are we.
Sure the peak load doesn't change, but the speed of the charge and how long it takes to charge the bigger battery pack adds load to the grid for longer.
Or are you claiming a fast charger that is forcing higher amps into the pack isn't a higher load than the slower/ lower amp charging?
The fact that no one wants to wait longer than they have to, will mean more fast charging, than slow, and more fast charging of larger packs will still take longer than a smaller battery pack, and put a load on the grid , that was not there before this ev farce.
Imagine if you will if everyone turned on their electric oven ( just go with the idea that everyones oven/stove is electric for this example) AND turned on their electric Heat and cloth driers. and left them all on for 10 hours, you think the grid can deal with 1/20th of this? It can't handle summer time and 59% of people having a/c's running.

Not every country is 90% waste land with no power draw.
Some have a huge population, and greenies hell bent on shutting down, coal, nuke,hydro(save the fishes),n/g and any wind farms because of birds.
But , Facts and REALITY don't matter, right , Only "feelings"

 

[Burkey]

Sure the peak load doesn't change, but the speed of the charge and how long it takes to charge the bigger battery pack adds load to the grid for longer.

A couple of things to understand.
Firstly, the best way to charge/operate your EV is to keep the battery between 20-80% of its rated capacity.
Secondly, knowing the above, you’ll find that MOST users will charge their car daily, rather than waiting for it to be near empty.
Therefore, for MOST people, MOST of the time, the distance travelled in that day is the determining factor in how much power will be required to charge it, not the size of the battery.
As always, there will be exceptions, but the exceptions don’t really matter in the scheme of the grid, which will make sense once you grasp some more concepts…..which I’m about to explain.

Or are you claiming a fast charger that is forcing higher amps into the pack isn't a higher load than the slower/ lower amp charging?

I’m not “claiming“ anything. I’m telling you how things actually work.
Yes, for the USER a faster charger draws more amps.
The grid however doesn’t necessarily see more amps because the charge takes less time, meaning that less users are connected at any given moment (Because charging takes less time).
Here in Australia we are seeing a push for FASTER charging for that very reason. We would rather that people be able to charge their cars quickly rather than have everyone connected all at once. It for convenience, but for the sake of having load flexibility. It’s hard to incentivise people to relocate their charging times if it takes all night. Much easier if you can allocate particular periods/prices. But what would I know, I’m just on the front end of all this stuff….

The fact that no one wants to wait longer than they have to, will mean more fast charging, than slow, and more fast charging of larger packs will still take longer than a smaller battery pack, and put a load on the grid ,

It would if everyone was forced to charge their car at exactly the same moment. As I already explained, that isn’t going to happen at the rate you think it will and most users won’t deplete their battery, as I’ve a
ready explained.
Yes, there will most certainly be loads on the grid that didn’t previously exist, but you’ve already highlighted that your grid is in need of upgrades. What a perfect time to invest the money needed to do it properly.
But, there’s aLso something else you’re omitting from all of this. You understand that once the country is ful of Ev’s, literally every house with a car will also have its own reserve of electricity on hand. Remember that thing I said about charging the battery to 80% capacity each night? Yeah, that battery will also be able to supply power back to the grid if/when required. Imagine being able to draw poker at times of lower load and inject it back in at times of peak load.….

Imagine if you will if everyone turned on their electric oven ( just go with the idea that everyones oven/stove is electric for this example) AND turned on their electric Heat and cloth driers. and left them all on for 10 hours, you think the grid can deal with 1/20th of this? It can't handle summer time and 59% of people having a/c's running.

If the loads you refer to could actually store energy and release it back into the grid and you could incentivise people to capture it at low-load times and release it at peak-load times, it would be AMAZING.
Imagine if you could get them to capture it at twice the speed, thereby enabling them to capture it at very specific moments, rather than having their capture take place at times that don’t really suit the grid… or are you saying that your grid is on the verge of collapse 24/7? If so, it’s time to fix it.

When all you’re doing is looking for negatives, you won’t find any positives, or even be able to see how some of the “problems“ are actually advangages. Make no mistake, there are a LOT of positives (pun not intended) in electric vehicles. That doesn't mean they’re perfect though.

 

[sk47]

A couple of things to understand.
Firstly, the best way to charge/operate your EV is to keep the battery between 20-80% of its rated capacity.
Secondly, knowing the above, you’ll find that MOST users will charge their car daily, rather than waiting for it to be near empty.
Therefore, for MOST people, MOST of the time, the distance travelled in that day is the determining factor in how much power will be required to charge it, not the size of the battery.
As always, there will be exceptions, but the exceptions don’t really matter in the scheme of the grid, which will make sense once you grasp some more concepts…..which I’m about to explain.


I’m not “claiming“ anything. I’m telling you how things actually work.
Yes, for the USER a faster charger draws more amps.
The grid however doesn’t necessarily see more amps because the charge takes less time, meaning that less users are connected at any given moment (Because charging takes less time).
Here in Australia we are seeing a push for FASTER charging for that very reason. We would rather that people be able to charge their cars quickly rather than have everyone connected all at once. It for convenience, but for the sake of having load flexibility. It’s hard to incentivise people to relocate their charging times if it takes all night. Much easier if you can allocate particular periods/prices. But what would I know, I’m just on the front end of all this stuff….


It would if everyone was forced to charge their car at exactly the same moment. As I already explained, that isn’t going to happen at the rate you think it will and most users won’t deplete their battery, as I’ve a
ready explained.
Yes, there will most certainly be loads on the grid that didn’t previously exist, but you’ve already highlighted that your grid is in need of upgrades. What a perfect time to invest the money needed to do it properly.
But, there’s aLso something else you’re omitting from all of this. You understand that once the country is ful of Ev’s, literally every house with a car will also have its own reserve of electricity on hand. Remember that thing I said about charging the battery to 80% capacity each night? Yeah, that battery will also be able to supply power back to the grid if/when required. Imagine being able to draw poker at times of lower load and inject it back in at times of peak load.….



If the loads you refer to could actually store energy and release it back into the grid and you could incentivise people to capture it at low-load times and release it at peak-load times, it would be AMAZING.
Imagine if you could get them to capture it at twice the speed, thereby enabling them to capture it at very specific moments, rather than having their capture take place at times that don’t really suit the grid… or are you saying that your grid is on the verge of collapse 24/7? If so, it’s time to fix it.

When all you’re doing is looking for negatives, you won’t find any positives, or even be able to see how some of the “problems“ are actually advangages. Make no mistake, there are a LOT of positives (pun not intended) in electric vehicles. That doesn't mean they’re perfect though.

Hello; May come back to dissect the many flaws in this post. But for now only the false premise will be addressed. I get that you likely actually believe what you wrote. While sad, not unexpected.

The goal according to you champions here and around the world is to replace all fossil fuels used in transportation with battery -electric vehicles. Say the miles driven by vehicles, including big trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles as well as cars and trucks stay the same as is normal in recent times. We already know how many barrels of oil are used daily. Likely already know how many gallons of gasoline and diesel are used each day.
We can estimate the energy used by all transport, farming and other such vehicles each day. Let us further not include the 50 to 60% of energy that goes to heat. Only calculate the energy used to move the vehicles around. All that energy will have to come off the grid every day on the average.
I for example do not fill up every other day as i did when commuting to work. I now fill up about two or three times a month. But I could top off up every day as you expect most EV owners to do. I happen to agree with this scenario. I think most EV's will be charged every day.

I cannot crunch the numbers myself but I do understand there will be an immense drain on the electric grid to power transportation on top of the usual energy the grid provides. My WAG is this will be a fairly constant and massive demand for electric energy 24/7/365 once all the ICE are gone.

I will attempt to disect this bit.
"You understand that once the country is ful of Ev’s, literally every house with a car will also have its own reserve of electricity on hand. Remember that thing I said about charging the battery to 80% capacity each night? Yeah, that battery will also be able to supply power back to the grid if/when required."

While it sounds neat I do not think it will be so neat. All the energy pulled from private vehicles will have to be replaced, else why would the vehicle owner pay for the charge to begin with. Whatever is pulled from the grid at night or low "green" energy periods will have to be replaced. There will be large losses in this process as well. During daylight and high winds replacing the energy used the night before will add to the already high demand. Not quite so faulty as a perpetual energy idea, but flawed.
I can see a way for this to work. That being an ever increasing "do without" standard of living. Electricity will very expensive as the "upgrades" to the grids must be paid for. Some folks will have to choose to run the heat/AC or charge the car.
I imagine some folks will be granted exceptions to having their charge taken back by the grid. Mayors, senators, fire men, ambulance drivers, police, doctors and more. I will not get an exception. Will you?

 

[K4fxd]

May come back to dissect the many flaws in this post.

I started to dissect it but the whole thing is pure BS.

10's of millions of people who own cars in America live in multi floor apartments and single family homes with on street parking. How will these cars add to the grid?

Are we going to tear up all the roads and parking lots and install metered chargers?

I don't have the energy or the desire to go point by point.

Nice try Burkey

 

[sk47]

I started to dissect it but the whole thing is pure BS.

10's of millions of people who own cars in America live in multi floor apartments and single family homes with on street parking. How will these cars add to the grid?

Are we going to tear up all the roads and parking lots and install metered chargers?

I don't have the energy or the desire to go point by point.

Nice try Burkey

Hello; Apparently to achieve the desired outcome the rebuilding of established infrastructure is conceived of in the fantasy. Truth be told such a thing is possible given enough time. Part of the things that make this EV world a fantasy currently is the proposed timeline.
Given enough time the change could be made. As new structures go up provisions to include charging could be added. Might take many decades or even a century or two for a lot of current buildings to wear out.

Back to an old point made by myself and others. That being that if the BEV's were a better vehicle or a better deal money wise or some positive combination of the two, the change would not be such a chore. As it now stands we are expected to embrace inferior vehicles at great cost. We are then to pay for the massive upgrades to the grids around the world at super expensive cost. This massive cost/debt is largely dismissed/ignored by the champions. My take is the expense be dammed because in the long run it is worth it sort of thing.

Same sort of blind spot for all the folks in apartments and homes with on street parking. Had the champions allowed for some of us to keep ICE in such circumstances beyond 2030 -2035 it would have been reasonable. If half the worlds vehicles are EV and half ICE there would be a dramatic change in emissions. That would be good. But good is not enough, they have to have it all. (NOTE- I am , of course, leaving out in this paragraph the considerable facts about all the pollution and emissions associated with "green energy" and BEV's.

Enough dissection.

 

[K4fxd]

(NOTE- I am , of course, leaving out in this paragraph the considerable facts about all the pollution and emissions associated with "green energy" and BEV's.

Noted. If half the worlds vehicles were BEV emissions would drop by 10 to 15%

 

[sk47]

Noted. If half the worlds vehicles were BEV emissions would drop by 10 to 15%

Hello; I think I get your point. Not a great deal of bang for all the bucks sort of thing. I am not yet convinced a "green energy" and all BEV world will be dramatically "cleaner". Too soon to call, but the recycling of the battery packs is not yet settled. If we wind up with scrap yards full of old battery packs because it is not economically feasible to recycle them. I understand the "plan" is to recycle them and some early start up programs have begun.
Governments can pump monies into these "green", BEV and recycle programs and keep them going. But it seems to me at some point these things ought to financially stand on their own. I just do not see that happening any time soon.

 

[K4fxd]

Not a great deal of bang for all the bucks sort of thing.

This is how I see things.

If getting your gas powered lawn mower 50% cleaner and it raised the cost an additional 5 dollars, no one would complain and we would praise Briggs & Stratton for being "green"

If cleaning them up an additional 10% and it added 200 dollars to the price would it be worth it?

Where we are with BEV's is like cleaning up the lawn mower an additional 12% and it costing 1000 dollars per unit.

Money doesn't grow on trees and governments only have money by taking it from it's citizens.

 

[jtmat]

The price blows some previous comments in this thread out the water.​

​

Far as some of the recent comments -- seems some of you have reverted back to "we want it now" vs. the reality. The reality is there is a plan that will take decades. It does not matter how much you moan about "now".​

​

​

BYD launches affordable Dolphin EV in Japan to unlock market dominated by Toyota​

​

​

China’s largest automaker, BYD, is set to take on Toyota on its home turf. BYD launched the all-electric Dolphin hatchback starting at ¥3.63 million ($24,570) in Japan Wednesday as it looks to take on Toyota head-on.​

​

​

The Chinese automaker introduced the Dolphin EV at a launch event in Tokyo on Wednesday. Powered by a 70 kWh battery, the base model provides a range of 250 miles (400 km).​

​

The extended-range variant offers up to 295 miles (476 km) range with a 150 Wh battery pack. It will cost around ¥4 million ($27,080).​

​

https://electrek.co/2023/09/20/byds-affordable-dolphin-ev-japan-take-on-toyota/ ​

 

[sk47]

World on track to meet ‘well below 2°C’ Paris Agreement climate target, finds new forecast (msn.com)
Hello; I was about to shut down my computer for the day when I ran across this. First, I admit I have not examined the story closely enough to be sure but made me think of a back and forth had in this site, maybe this thread, some few months ago.
The discussion was about how the climate models called for any reductions of Co2 emissions right now (even down to net zero) to not result in any temperature benefit until 50 or 100 years or so from the net zero point. That no matter what we do now some "warming" is baked in for decades to come by the models and information available.
While I have been figuring this was an upgrade over past "the sky is falling" type warnings/scare tactic whose end times came and were passed by without the dire consequences predicted. The various warnings that if something or other was not done then in ten or twelve years some disaster will happen. Now in this new tactic with no hope for reprieve for 50 to 100 years the global warming/climate change agenda would be able to push the plan for BEV's and such things for a long time.

I saw a story months ago of how NASA was to reevaluate/ go over their findings. I wrote something along the lines that new and improved timelines will be the result that efforts now will bear positive results sooner than the previously predicted 50 to 100 years. I admit here that I may be reading the included link improperly, but my early impression is it is saying something similar. Am I on or off base?

 

[sk47]

seems some of you have reverted back to "we want it now" vs. the reality. The reality is there is a plan that will take decades. It does not matter how much you moan about "now".

Hello; Interesting how a perfect example just poped up while I was writing my latest post.

 

[jtmat]

Am I on or off base?

Goodbye; I don't have to read the link or what you wrote to know you are off base. That is your answer, since you asked the question.

Sponsored