I drove my first EV

[HoosierDaddy]

These entities all want to take away our right to own fast cars.

For sure getting rid of ICE (fast or slow) is a top priority for them. But if they were anti-fast, they blew it big time. EVs are the performance bargains of the century. My model 3 Performance hits 60 in 3 seconds, costs the same as a 5.0 Mustang, weighs the same, has a much lower center of gravity and definitely handles better than a non PP (or higher) Mustang. I miss the sounds and manual transmission when I drive the Tesla instead of my Mustang GT but not much else. I personally like the looks in and out of my Mustang better but the Tesla is better looking to me than the vast majority of vehicles.

Don't rule out performance junkies who don't mind automatic transmission and are tone deaf having invented this climate hoax just to trick the greenies into financing EVs just for the street performance boost.

Sponsored

 

[Skye]

As an exercise, I converted the energy provided by US daily gasoline consumption into watts, then determined the amount of additional electrical grid capacity needed to cover that, if the US was to move away from gasoline-powered vehicles to EVs.

This was not a realistic exercise. I did not account for the removal of fossil fuels used to generate electricity in the US. I did not account for the use of diesel. I do not account for future demands such as additional crypto mining and AI computing. I only focused on removing the use of gasoline by consumers and businesses, in the existing economy.

The following was to give me a sense of scale, challenges and plausibility.

It's generally accepted one gallon of gasoline produces about 36 KWh of energy, at a 100% conversion rate.

https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/nres633/Pages/Unit1/Supplementary Pages/Energy-Conversion-and-Resource-Tables.aspx

Thermodynamics tells us there will always be losses in conversion. I feel it's also accepted an ICE uses a fraction of the given energy, due to losses in heat, friction, wasted idling, etc. For my calculations, I'm going to give the average ICE an efficiency rating of 25%; this is a general average from trolling various sites and articles. Applying this to the number stated above, I get 36 KWh * .25 = 9 KWh.

The US consumes roughly 365 M gallons of gasoline, daily. Texas, CA and FL consume one-third of that.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline.php

So my energy requirement is 365 M gallons of gasoline, in electrical watts, daily.

365 M * 9 KWh = 3,285,000,000 KWh. We need 3,285 GWh of electricity, daily, to replace 100% of the gasoline usage in the US.

In 2023, the US generated and consumed 4,178 GW of power throughout the year, or 11.4 GWh power daily (average).

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained...y-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/

https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/electricity-sources-by-state/

If all power plants were on-line, producing their nameplate capacity (100%, WOT), 1.3M MWh of electricity can be produced. This equates to 31.125 GWh of production in 24-hours. But this isn't realistic. Natural disasters, maintenance, retirements and upgrades are going to affect the daily outcome. In addition, as we'll later see in CA, operational capacity can fade when the Sun sets or the wind stops blowing.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48

https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas-Electricity-Generation-Capacity-2024.pdf

Above, my daily requirement is 3,285 GWh of electricity, or 136 GWh each hour, 24/7/365. I'm currently capable of producing 31 GWh, at 100%.

Using the document referenced at the "publicpower" site just above, I list some numbers.

Plants under construction: 65,897 MWh
Plants scheduled retirement (through '28): (77,984) MWh
-------------------------------------------------------------
Net (11,997) MWh

Permitted Plants: 66,620 MWh
-------------------------------------------------------------
Net 54,623 MWh

Pending Application: 61,417 MWh
Proposed: 273,757 MWh
-------------------------------------------------------------
Net 389,797 MWh

The numbers above can be ranked from "most promising to be completed" to "least promising". At first glance, things look on the up, but there are some caveats.

Ninety percent of the net possible future generation, 350,736 MWh, is in support of non-utility generators (NUGs). NUGs are companies that generate electricity, placing it for sale on the open market. As a region requires additional power to support maintenance, disasters or high loads, they can purchase the needed power from NUGs.

Eighty-percent of the possible future generation is wind and solar.

Prior to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022, NUGs did not receive credits, tax breaks or incentives to install wind or solar projects. The IRA makes this possible.

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries...the-inflation-reduction-act-heres-whats-in-it

To the concerns of the IRA and what's happening, while the program is new, the actions are not. Many technologies and sectors of the economy came about from GOV-funded research projects, tax credits or other incentives.

A new Administration will take office January. While the IRA could be left as-is, spending could also be curtailed or cut entirely.

So we needed 136 GWh in additional capacity. And, on paper, we could be receiving as much at 389 GWh. If the IRA is cut, we could receive virtually no new additional capacity. The document also references over 340 GWh of planned plant cancellations from 2016-2023. The odds of 389 GWh of new power generation being installed is slim.

Lack of a national strategy and consensus, time, money, labor, planning, sourcing materials, are at least some of the contributing factors as to any new capacity comes on-line. There's the additional problem that we're not the only nation considering these issues.

Returning to sense of scale, the largest nuclear plant in the US has a name plate capacity of 4.5 GWh.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=207&t=21

IF, if we install one nuclear power plant, strategically placed, every year for the next 30 years, we could meet my daily demand. And the 30 year horizon dovetails with a lot of the goals stated by others.

Pivoting to CA, the state has directed all new vehicle sales will be zero-polluting by 2035.

California consumes 33 M gallons of gasoline daily. 33,000,000 * 9 KWh = 297 GWh. At peak generation, 100% WOT, the grid in CA is capable of producing 87 GWh. But, as we've seen with the national grid, 100% WOT, 24/7/365 is not realistic.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-repo...-data/electric-generation-capacity-and-energy

https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/demand#section-current

In 2022, CA imported 28.9 % of its needed electricity. Some of this will be due to increases in load, but also maintenance, replacement, failures, etc.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-repo...ty-data/2022-total-system-electric-generation

https://engaging-data.com/california-electricity-generation/

The following article highlights the difficulty they face.

https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/08/california-clean-power-progress-grid/

Turning to TX and their daily requirement: 38,000,000 * 9 KWh = 342 GWh. Maximum generation capacity: 154 GWh.

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/economic-data/energy/2023/ercot.php

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/industry/2024/energy-demand/

For all examples, power can be created and stored. CA does have plans for storage when generated electricity is not needed. Battery storage and other types of components are advancing and being installed. But CA also intends to continue to operate natural gas plants for the foreseeable future. I did not study TX's plans in-depth.



All the above gives one perspective on scale, cost, time and effort from the energy generation side. It doesn't all have to be power plants. More efficient materials, reduced demand, lighter vehicles, carbon capture, etc., would reduce the overall electrical requirement.

Distribution of the electricity is the other half of the equation, and deals with all the same concerns for plausibility as generation. The following article highlights what's going to be involved in that.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-ev-transition-explained-2658463709

Finally, this requires buy-in from consumers throughout the country. Non-gasoline vehicles have to be made available the consumer needs, wants and can pay for. Feasibility of this and the distribution system will be influenced by the same factors affecting power generation.

 

[526 HRSE]

Look at climate charts and you will see the Earth has warmed just as fast in the past as it is now.

Heating and cooling is a natural cycle and there is nothing we can do about it

Yes, it always has fluctuated. But from inception, it's getting cooler. Climate activists just tend to use the part of the chart that supports their argument. The entire chart tells a different story.

 

[CarmeloS]

Not sure if it was brought up, but how much does it cost to replace a battery in an EV now?

 

[526 HRSE]

As an exercise, I converted the energy provided by US daily gasoline consumption into watts, then determined the amount of additional electrical grid capacity needed to cover that, if the US was to move away from gasoline-powered vehicles to EVs.

This was not a realistic exercise. I did not account for the removal of fossil fuels used to generate electricity in the US. I did not account for the use of diesel. I do not account for future demands such as additional crypto mining and AI computing. I only focused on removing the use of gasoline by consumers and businesses, in the existing economy.

The following was to give me a sense of scale, challenges and plausibility.

It's generally accepted one gallon of gasoline produces about 36 KWh of energy, at a 100% conversion rate.

https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/nres633/Pages/Unit1/Supplementary Pages/Energy-Conversion-and-Resource-Tables.aspx

Thermodynamics tells us there will always be losses in conversion. I feel it's also accepted an ICE uses a fraction of the given energy, due to losses in heat, friction, wasted idling, etc. For my calculations, I'm going to give the average ICE an efficiency rating of 25%; this is a general average from trolling various sites and articles. Applying this to the number stated above, I get 36 KWh * .25 = 9 KWh.

The US consumes roughly 365 M gallons of gasoline, daily. Texas, CA and FL consume one-third of that.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline.php

So my energy requirement is 365 M gallons of gasoline, in electrical watts, daily.

365 M * 9 KWh = 3,285,000,000 KWh. We need 3,285 GWh of electricity, daily, to replace 100% of the gasoline usage in the US.

In 2023, the US generated and consumed 4,178 GW of power throughout the year, or 11.4 GWh power daily (average).

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained...y-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/

https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/electricity-sources-by-state/

If all power plants were on-line, producing their nameplate capacity (100%, WOT), 1.3M MWh of electricity can be produced. This equates to 31.125 GWh of production in 24-hours. But this isn't realistic. Natural disasters, maintenance, retirements and upgrades are going to affect the daily outcome. In addition, as we'll later see in CA, operational capacity can fade when the Sun sets or the wind stops blowing.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48

https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas-Electricity-Generation-Capacity-2024.pdf

Above, my daily requirement is 3,285 GWh of electricity, or 136 GWh each hour, 24/7/365. I'm currently capable of producing 31 GWh, at 100%.

Using the document referenced at the "publicpower" site just above, I list some numbers.

Plants under construction: 65,897 MWh
Plants scheduled retirement (through '28): (77,984) MWh
-------------------------------------------------------------
Net (11,997) MWh

Permitted Plants: 66,620 MWh
-------------------------------------------------------------
Net 54,623 MWh

Pending Application: 61,417 MWh
Proposed: 273,757 MWh
-------------------------------------------------------------
Net 389,797 MWh

The numbers above can be ranked from "most promising to be completed" to "least promising". At first glance, things look on the up, but there are some caveats.

Ninety percent of the net possible future generation, 350,736 MWh, is in support of non-utility generators (NUGs). NUGs are companies that generate electricity, placing it for sale on the open market. As a region requires additional power to support maintenance, disasters or high loads, they can purchase the needed power from NUGs.

Eighty-percent of the possible future generation is wind and solar.

Prior to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022, NUGs did not receive credits, tax breaks or incentives to install wind or solar projects. The IRA makes this possible.

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries...the-inflation-reduction-act-heres-whats-in-it

To the concerns of the IRA and what's happening, while the program is new, the actions are not. Many technologies and sectors of the economy came about from GOV-funded research projects, tax credits or other incentives.

A new Administration will take office January. While the IRA could be left as-is, spending could also be curtailed or cut entirely.

So we needed 136 GWh in additional capacity. And, on paper, we could be receiving as much at 389 GWh. If the IRA is cut, we could receive virtually no new additional capacity. The document also references over 340 GWh of planned plant cancellations from 2016-2023. The odds of 389 GWh of new power generation being installed is slim.

Lack of a national strategy and consensus, time, money, labor, planning, sourcing materials, are at least some of the contributing factors as to any new capacity comes on-line. There's the additional problem that we're not the only nation considering these issues.

Returning to sense of scale, the largest nuclear plant in the US has a name plate capacity of 4.5 GWh.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=207&t=21

IF, if we install one nuclear power plant, strategically placed, every year for the next 30 years, we could meet my daily demand. And the 30 year horizon dovetails with a lot of the goals stated by others.

Pivoting to CA, the state has directed all new vehicle sales will be zero-polluting by 2035.

California consumes 33 M gallons of gasoline daily. 33,000,000 * 9 KWh = 297 GWh. At peak generation, 100% WOT, the grid in CA is capable of producing 87 GWh. But, as we've seen with the national grid, 100% WOT, 24/7/365 is not realistic.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-repo...-data/electric-generation-capacity-and-energy

https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/demand#section-current

In 2022, CA imported 28.9 % of its needed electricity. Some of this will be due to increases in load, but also maintenance, replacement, failures, etc.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-repo...ty-data/2022-total-system-electric-generation

https://engaging-data.com/california-electricity-generation/

The following article highlights the difficulty they face.

https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/08/california-clean-power-progress-grid/

Turning to TX and their daily requirement: 38,000,000 * 9 KWh = 342 GWh. Maximum generation capacity: 154 GWh.

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/economic-data/energy/2023/ercot.php

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/industry/2024/energy-demand/

For all examples, power can be created and stored. CA does have plans for storage when generated electricity is not needed. Battery storage and other types of components are advancing and being installed. But CA also intends to continue to operate natural gas plants for the foreseeable future. I did not study TX's plans in-depth.



All the above gives one perspective on scale, cost, time and effort from the energy generation side. It doesn't all have to be power plants. More efficient materials, reduced demand, lighter vehicles, carbon capture, etc., would reduce the overall electrical requirement.

Distribution of the electricity is the other half of the equation, and deals with all the same concerns for plausibility as generation. The following article highlights what's going to be involved in that.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-ev-transition-explained-2658463709

Finally, this requires buy-in from consumers throughout the country. Non-gasoline vehicles have to be made available the consumer needs, wants and can pay for. Feasibility of this and the distribution system will be influenced by the same factors affecting power generation.

If CO2 were such a big issue with the climate, California would place a larger effort on combating forest fires. But they don't, the politicians simply don't care. I live in a flight path where air tankers fly out. The Caldor fire burned 220k acres. It took a week for them to get those birds in the air. The Caldor fire alone sent almost 10 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Going "Green" is a money grab. I'd rather have nuclear power.

 

[526 HRSE]

Not sure if it was brought up, but how much does it cost to replace a battery in an EV now?

Cost
The cost to replace an EV battery can range from $2,500 to over $60,000. For example, a Tesla Model S battery can cost up to $20,000 to replace, while a 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 battery can cost over $60,000 to replace.

• 
  
  
• Factors that affect cost
  The cost to replace an EV battery depends on several factors, including the battery's size, chemical composition, and the raw materials used to build it.
  
  
• 
  

• Warranty
  If your car is still under warranty, replacing the battery pack could be free.
  

• 
  

• Lifespan
  EV batteries are expected to last longer than many people expected. Newer generations of EVs should have even more robust and resilient battery management systems.
  
  

 

[526 HRSE]

For sure getting rid of ICE (fast or slow) is a top priority for them. But if they were anti-fast, they blew it big time. EVs are the performance bargains of the century. My model 3 Performance hits 60 in 3 seconds, costs the same as a 5.0 Mustang, weighs the same, has a much lower center of gravity and definitely handles better than a non PP (or higher) Mustang. I miss the sounds and manual transmission when I drive the Tesla instead of my Mustang GT but not much else. I personally like the looks in and out of my Mustang better but the Tesla is better looking to me than the vast majority of vehicles.

Don't rule out performance junkies who don't mind automatic transmission and are tone deaf having invented this climate hoax just to trick the greenies into financing EVs just for the street performance boost.

Besides, it matches your dress.

 

[526 HRSE]

I don't have any real reason to dislike EVs that I can explain.

Just something about EVs is not ticking my clock.

It must be the testosterone

 

[Mike Pfeifer]

Cost
The cost to replace an EV battery can range from $2,500 to over $60,000. For example, a Tesla Model S battery can cost up to $20,000 to replace, while a 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 battery can cost over $60,000 to replace.

• 
  
  
• Factors that affect cost
  The cost to replace an EV battery depends on several factors, including the battery's size, chemical composition, and the raw materials used to build it.
  
  
• 
  
• Warranty
  If your car is still under warranty, replacing the battery pack could be free.
• 
  
• Lifespan
  EV batteries are expected to last longer than many people expected. Newer generations of EVs should have even more robust and resilient battery management systems.
  

Additionally, it may be that only part of a battery may need replacing, depending on the way it’s constructed.

 

[K4fxd]

In all the electricity calculations you did not account for fast charging. There is no way Americans will accept waiting hours for a car to charge while traveling.

 

[CorvZ061]

My job provided me with a Tesla Model S for my daily commute to and from work. We are a dealer for a yellow fork truck company. I charge my Tesla at work and just drive to and from. It was an interesting learning curve, but I enjoy it for what it is. For a daily it excels, for anything else? I’ll pass.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

My job provided me with a Tesla Model S for my daily commute to and from work. We are a dealer for a yellow fork truck company. I charge my Tesla at work and just drive to and from. It was an interesting learning curve, but I enjoy it for what it is. For a daily it excels, for anything else? I’ll pass.

Of course, if you have a two car garage and budget you don't have to pass.

Life's too short to pass!

 

[CorvZ061]

Of course, if you have a two car garage and budget you don't have to pass.

Life's too short to pass!

Mines provided, so I still have fun outside of commuting. It’s hard to have fun commuting in Atlanta traffic so why waste a good car on that?

 

[HoosierDaddy]

It’s hard to have fun commuting in Atlanta traffic so why waste a good car on that?

Vote for freeways so you'll have on-ramps. No need to apologize to GT-500 drivers who tried to get to the merge point first, even if they ever do catch up.

Install and use that navigation app that finds routes with the most stop signs. Traffic lights are a disappointment since you might not be first in line.

Follow me for more EV tips.

 

[sk47]

It's generally accepted one gallon of gasoline produces about 36 KWh of energy,

The US consumes roughly 365 M gallons of gasoline, daily.

365 M * 9 KWh = 3,285,000,000 KWh. We need 3,285 GWh of electricity, daily, to replace 100% of the gasoline usage in the US.

In 2023, the US generated and consumed 4,178 GW of power throughout the year, or 11.4 GWh power daily (average).

Hello; Even using your assumed efficiency of 25% there will be a need for an additional 3,285 GWh of electrical generation to replace only gasoline in passenger cars if i read your post correctly.
if I divide the 11.4 GWh we currently generate into the 3,285 GWh extra needed that gives over 288 times more daily electricity generated than is currently being done.
I admit to having selected only a few bits from the post. I think they are important bits but can see how the numbers might be used in different manners.

Sponsored