GM is pulling back on EVs

[sk47]

But lets say you are told to evacuate for some reason. You hop in the EV figuring to have a full charge. ( oops- I forget the software which does not allow for a full 100% charge because charging to full capacity is bad for the battery life. So, the advertised 350 miles from a full charge in real use is maybe 305 miles because software is saving battery life.) Then you find out the grid has pulled maybe 25% of your charge back to power the grid. So, you are down to maybe 230 miles. Then if it is cold and you want to be warm or it is raining or it is at night, you will lose range because these things use up charge.

Here is a guess as to how they will pull charge from private vehicles to power the grid when the green supply is absent. First round they will pull a little from everyone. If more is needed another round will be pulled. Then round after round because the grid must be fed.
Last item is who will be exempt from this. Police & ambulance likely. Doctors maybe. Politicians of all stripes. I do not expect to be on any privilege list.

A man took his Tesla on a road trip for the first time and tells EV owners to beware of the 'charging curve' (msn.com)
Hello; Learned of a new feature in a Tesla, camp mode.

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Not that Gregs will see this, but this was why many power plants switched over to natural gas years ago. It is cleaner than oil or coal. At some expense also.
But the new way of thinking somehow equates natural gas to coal and oil-fired boilers. Somehow much better is not good enough.
Same for transport and travel vehicles. So very much cleaner than not so long ago. Yet under the new thinking we are to abandon a proven set of energy and transport systems and replace them with idealized but unproven systems. Unfortunately, the test of these new systems will come at a times of crisis when a lack of reliability can be fatal. A heat wave or deep freeze.

We have a clue about how the grid will be powered at night and when the wind blows. The plan seems to be to pull charge from private EV vehicles. I imagine the spin will be at least two fold. In a world with all EV's they will say only a little will be pulled back from any individuals at any time. We know that will be false. They will take what they need since the needs of the state outweigh the need of the individual.
But lets say you are told to evacuate for some reason. You hop in the EV figuring to have a full charge. ( oops- I forget the software which does not allow for a full 100% charge because charging to full capacity is bad for the battery life. So, the advertised 350 miles from a full charge in real use is maybe 305 miles because software is saving battery life.) Then you find out the grid has pulled maybe 25% of your charge back to power the grid. So, you are down to maybe 230 miles. Then if it is cold and you want to be warm or it is raining or it is at night, you will lose range because these things use up charge.

Here is a guess as to how they will pull charge from private vehicles to power the grid when the green supply is absent. First round they will pull a little from everyone. If more is needed another round will be pulled. Then round after round because the grid must be fed.
Last item is who will be exempt from this. Police & ambulance likely. Doctors maybe. Politicians of all stripes. I do not expect to be on any privilege list.

I thought we weren’t supposed to make any predictions for the future. That’s been your position the whole time, has it not?

Given that releasing battery power into the grid is currently ENTIRELY OPTIONAL, how exactly did you decide that it will “someday” (to use your phrase) become compulsory?

 

[sk47]

I thought we weren’t supposed to make any predictions for the future. That’s been your position the whole time, has it not?

Given that releasing battery power into the grid is currently ENTIRELY OPTIONAL, how exactly did you decide that it will “someday” (to use your phrase) become compulsory?

Hello; Interesting spin on my position. I kind of get what you are trying for, but it is silly.

I get that it will be mandatory because such has been proposed by the state of California recently. Not in effect yet. It calls for all BEV's sold in California to have bi-directional charging. The stated purpose was to allow for B2G and B2B. This was posted in links already in this thread.
Guess you missed it.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Interesting spin on my position. I kind of get what you are trying for, but it is silly.

I get that it will be mandatory because such has been proposed by the state of California recently. Not in effect yet. It calls for all BEV's sold in California to have bi-directional charging. The stated purpose was to allow for B2G and B2B. This was posted in links already in this thread.
Guess you missed it.

Hello; Follow up- These parallels the many things many of us were concerned about during the Covid times. So many things we were told would be voluntary yet wound up being mandatory. Don't bother with repeating your old saw about how the shots and such were not "actually" mandated. When skipping the shot could cost a job or military career it was close enough to mandatory to not make much difference. Too small of a peg to hang a hat on.

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-took-tesla-road-trip-073000234.html

Terrain makes a difference for range. This is the same as my buddy found out. With our hills a 300 mile range was cut to 225 or so.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Interesting spin on my position. I kind of get what you are trying for, but it is silly.

I get that it will be mandatory because such has been proposed by the state of California recently. Not in effect yet. It calls for all BEV's sold in California to have bi-directional charging. The stated purpose was to allow for B2G and B2B. This was posted in links already in this thread.
Guess you missed it.

I didn’t miss it.
I‘m simply using your logic to show you how wrong you are.

Again, using your logic, it would seem that a government mandate to fit a piece of equipment to a vehicle is the equivalent of mandating that the piece of equipment be used. Clearly this is NOT the case.

Yes, it’s possible (in theory) that a government might eventually mandate that the owner use the equipment. Cool. Now how do they go about enforcing it?

Will they have a secret team of Navy Seals kicking doors in to make sure that your car is plugged into the grid from the moment you get home until the moment you leave again? What penalty would they apply to someone who unplugs their car once it’s charged?

Maybe, just maybe, they might try and trap more flies with sugar than with salt? Maybe they’ll take the easier road and pay you MORE for the power you return to the grid than what it costs to consume it, incentivising people to use the system, rather than (directly) penalising them for not using it. Perhaps there are other ways to encourage people to use the system? Did you spend any time thinking about those opportunities or did you instantly take the position of negativity?

It makes sense that you’d be scared of change when you fear your government and think that everyone is out to get you. Your eyes will always be looking for the worst possible outcome, rather than embracing and looking forward to the possibilities.


“Electric cars can be a solution to this problem, since they could function as a distributed backup system for the grid. With incentives to charge overnight (utilities give cheaper rates for night charging) and additional incentives to discharge a battery when demand is high, EV owners could help the grid, the air, and also potentially their pocketbooks by buying electricity when it is cheap and putting it back onto the grid when it’s expensive.”

 

[K4fxd]

Maybe they’ll take the easier road and pay you MORE for the power you return to the grid than what it costs to consume it, incentivising people to use the system, rather than (directly) penalising them for not using it.

That was the carrot they dangled before us when solar panels came out. The utilities started complaining and lobbying. Now you buy your electricity at retail cost and sell it at wholesale prices.

 

[sk47]

I didn’t miss it.
I‘m simply using your logic to show you how wrong you are.

Again, using your logic, it would seem that a government mandate to fit a piece of equipment to a vehicle is the equivalent of mandating that the piece of equipment be used. Clearly this is NOT the case.

Yes, it’s possible (in theory) that a government might eventually mandate that the owner use the equipment. Cool. Now how do they go about enforcing it?

Will they have a secret team of Navy Seals kicking doors in to make sure that your car is plugged into the grid from the moment you get home until the moment you leave again? What penalty would they apply to someone who unplugs their car once it’s charged?

Maybe, just maybe, they might try and trap more flies with sugar than with salt? Maybe they’ll take the easier road and pay you MORE for the power you return to the grid than what it costs to consume it, incentivising people to use the system, rather than (directly) penalising them for not using it. Perhaps there are other ways to encourage people to use the system? Did you spend any time thinking about those opportunities or did you instantly take the position of negativity?

It makes sense that you’d be scared of change when you fear your government and think that everyone is out to get you. Your eyes will always be looking for the worst possible outcome, rather than embracing and looking forward to the possibilities.


“Electric cars can be a solution to this problem, since they could function as a distributed backup system for the grid. With incentives to charge overnight (utilities give cheaper rates for night charging) and additional incentives to discharge a battery when demand is high, EV owners could help the grid, the air, and also potentially their pocketbooks by buying electricity when it is cheap and putting it back onto the grid when it’s expensive.”

Hello; One clear example I can use is that my electric utility company already can control when my water heater (WH) is on or off. Happens without any input from me at all. There is a second meter near the WH with indicator lights. So far they do not turn it off for too long. I did not sign up for this. The second meter was already in the house when I bought it. Maybe a previous owner had a choice, I do not know. Maybe I could opt out, I have not checked.

On one point you are correct. I do not yet know if feeding the grid from a personally owned BEV will be voluntary. I do not yet know if the BEV owner will be compensated for the charge taken from them.
I do know that years ago the story around solar panels home owners could send excess power back to the grid and get full credit for it. In places that has been reported to have been stopped.
I suppose it could be that governments might play nice and treat citizens fairly. Because it did not happen during covid does not necessarily mean it will not happen during the coming EV/Green energy crisis. I have doubts. You ought to know what governments are capable of from living thru the covid lockdowns in your place. I get that you were all for the extreme measures taken, but even so you were aware of them.

As to how they could take the charge, even I can figure that one. The BEV's are in a sense computers on wheels. When plugged into a charger they can communicate with the system which controls the grid. We already know for sure the public pay chargers do have communication capacity.

Even if the plan for using private vehicles as grid backup starts out as voluntary with compensation, I figure that will last only as long as things are going good. I am a pessimist and figure when things go badly the nice will stop. Currently the government is making owning an ICE more expensive, taking money from me to incentivize some other persons BEV purchase and mandating the end of new ICE's. yet I am to believe those same governments will play nice once we all have BEV's. If the grid needs power they will take it.

By the way how is the new ICE doing?

 

[Cobra Jet]

Texas passing EV tax:
Texas WILL Be Charging EV Owners $200 For Not Paying Gas Taxes https://carbuzz.com/news/texas-will-charging-ev-owners-200-for-not-paying-gas-taxes

 

[key01]

Texas passing EV tax:
Texas WILL Be Charging EV Owners $200 For Not Paying Gas Taxes https://carbuzz.com/news/texas-will-charging-ev-owners-200-for-not-paying-gas-taxes

Texas is just picking up the rear. 32 States currently charge extra to register or own an EV. 19 of those States also charge for hybrid vehicles as well.

 

[sk47]

Test shows explosive power of a lithium-ion battery thermal runaway | Watch (msn.com)

Hello; Sensationalism I suppose, but real.

 

[K4fxd]

Sensationalism I suppose,

No that is a feature, it's called BBQ mode.........

 

[sk47]

Are EV sales declining? Electrifying the car market may be getting harder. Here's why (msn.com)

“…share of Americans who say they’re “very unlikely” to consider an EV for their next vehicle purchase growing in each of the first three months of the year, according to a new report. “

“In March, 21% of new-vehicle shoppers said they were “very unlikely” to consider an EV, up from 18.9% in February and 17.8% in January,”

“While about four in 10 U.S. adults think using EVs helps address climate change “a great deal” (12%) or “a fair amount” (27%), roughly six in 10 believe it helps “only a little” (35%) or “not at all” (26%), according to a Gallup poll fielded March 1 - 23. “

“Only about 4% of Americans currently own an EV, Gallup said, “

 

[sk47]

It costs more to charge an EV than to fuel a car with gas, study finds (usatoday.com)

• “There are four additional costs to powering EVs beyond electricity: cost of a home charger, commercial charging, the EV tax and "deadhead" miles.”
• “For now, EVs cost more to power than gasoline costs to fuel an internal combustion car that gets reasonable gas mileage.”
• “Charging costs vary more widely than gasoline prices. “
• “There are significant time costs to finding reliable public chargers – even then a charger could take 30 minutes to go from 20% to an 80% charge.”

“Then, there are the "deadhead miles" car owners spend driving around trying to find a commercial charger. Even charging at home on a Level 1 or Level 2 charger is time consuming and expensive. “

“Anderson's report considers four costs beyond the cost of residential electricity when calculating how much it costs to drive an EV:

• Cost of the residential charger.
• Cost of commercial electricity.
• An annual EV tax.
• Deadhead miles to get to a fast charger.

Given all of that, the conclusion is EVs cost more to "fuel" than gasoline cars that get reasonable gas mileage, Anderson said. It all depends on how the car is used and how much commercial charging is involved. “

“A mid-priced internal combustion car that gets 33 miles per gallon would cost $8.58 in overall costs to drive 100 miles at $2.81 a gallon, the study found. But a mid-priced EV, such as Chevrolet Bolt, Nissan Leaf or a Tesla Model 3, would cost $12.95 to drive 100 miles in terms of costs that include recharging the vehicle using mostly a commercial charger.”

“The study differs from some reports that show it's cheaper to drive an EV than a conventional car. For example, a 2018 study from the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute found the average cost to operate an EV in the U.S. was $485 per year compared with a gasoline-powered vehicle at $1,117. Anderson said most studies include only the cost of residential electricity and don't factor in the four other costs that this study does.”

• “It’s very difficult to charge it up to 100%," Anderson said. "The chargers slow down and the manufacturers warn you not to do it because there is additional burden on the battery system when you get your vehicle above a 90% charge.””

 

[sk47]

Democrats’ electric vehicle boondoggle will run way over budget (msn.com)

“Data confirm that advocates of the IRA greatly understated its costs, and that the bill is a boondoggle, primed to sap still more funds from the already dangerously indebted American public.”

“A recent Goldman Sachs report estimates that the IRA’s green energy subsidies will likely cost taxpayers $1.2 trillion over the next decade. That’s more than three times the Congressional Budget Office’s projected $391 billion.”

“Clean vehicle subsidies are a prime culprit: Although forecasted to cost just $14 billion, they may cost roughly $390 billion, according to analysis from the Brookings Institution.”

“…tax credit to manufacturers for EV battery cells and modules. While the CBO tagged this program at $30.6 billion, the Mercatus Center’s Christine McDaniel explains its true cost could reach $196.5 billion.”

“Consumers who would otherwise buy a cheaper traditional car may now choose a subsidized EV. But such subsidies alter vehicles’ prices, not their costs. The difference will be paid by American taxpayers.”

Hello; Had to comment on this sentence. This is a good way to put what I have been driving at.

“fundamentally ill-considered. “Transportation may be 20 percent of emissions, but cars and vans represent only 8 percent, and 72 percent of these are personal vehicles—which means they sit idle most of the time,” observes Holman W. Jenkins Jr., a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board. “Global society’s personal vehicles may be a majority of cars, but they account for a minority of light-vehicle emissions—about 39 percent, or 3 percent of total emissions,””

Hello; Puts it into perspective doesn’t it. Our personal vehicles are 3% of total emissions.

“if left undistorted by governments, direct market actors toward using scarce resources with maximum efficiency. When governments intervene, businesses often choose less efficient strategies in pursuit of subsidies. This is exactly how the IRA is playing out: The bill incentivizes manufacturers to produce higher-cost EVs to the exclusion of cheaper and otherwise more profitable traditional vehicles.”

Sponsored