No it won't the amount of infrastructure needed to support all electric vehicles is staggering.
1. You would need thousands of rechargeable stations across the city and States.
2. You would need millions of meters and mini charging stations in peoples houses because it takes so long to charge vehicle.
3. You would need to additional power plants to meet this demand understanding most people will charge there vehicles over night so Solar and Wind not so good at night
4.You would need to spending millions on upgrading power lines to handle the demand
5. Battery techanalogy is still not there to support this type of demand - Also batteries are extremely toxic what and how are we going to to handle waste?
6. Your electric bill would sky rocket
i dont think its currently practical given the prices and that most used cars on the market are not EV.
i think its something to strive for. good way to start would be to produce much more EVs, much less gas vehicles. shift the market. and more subsidies for people to buy electric.
i also recognize that its not as useful for people who are driving very long distances. doesnt have to be 100%. but should be maximized
there's no way everybody is going to drive cars. think of the infrastructure we'd need, it's staggering! all the roads and highways. gas stations everywhere. parking lots everywhere. it will never happen.
I think Tesla sort of set the standard when it comes to charging station anxiety, tbh, most other makers are following suit...
Not only is the car constantly telling you how much charge is left, it's also telling you which charging stations you can reach with what you have left, and will even give you directions to them.
It's a completely different concept from "we'll turn this light on when you have 30 miles left to drive", but until there's a much more widespread infrastructure, it's probably the right approach.
Not sure what's funny/sarcastic about this, you'll be right in line once it saves you money. It already saves people money, only getting better.
You already posted this, and I already mentioned we don't know what batteries will look like 30 years from now.
But it also starts from a crappy premise, which is "to replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles". Nobody is looking to replace all vehicles today. That's why it's a 30 year pledge.
Also, 811 is already an improvement over 622, which requires less Cobalt, which is expensive and harder to acquire. Better chemistry cathodes in the upcoming years are also not out of the question.
That's sort of the point with this tech, it's an area of active research because it helps not just EVs, but electronics in general. Apple is investing a ton on this as well for their phones, etc.
There's nothing else for combustion engines. You can't make them more efficient without breaking the laws of thermodynamics. It's a dead end.
Its also not practical for people who drive infrequently, like me.
Back when I was commuting daily, I had a Prius. I hated that car, but it was efficient and reliable.
And, where I live now, I have to do occasional off-road driving. EV is not for me.
people who drive infrequently are lesser contributors anyway with respect to CO2 emissions. goal is to minimize. it doesnt have to be all or nothing.
1. There are already 43,000 public EV charging stations in the US. That's over 120,000+ outlets. And EV really hasn't taken completely off yet.
2. No you don't. Charging ports for home are cheap ($2k-$5k for a Level 2, and there are subsidies as well). They're not fast chargers like stations, but exploit the fact that most people can charge their car overnight for cheaper.
3. Largely depends on how much people need to charge their cars. We're now reaching ~500 miles range, that's slightly above combustion engines. Will there be more demand? Probably. But there's also much more alternatives for charging. The infrastructure to set up a EV charger is way, way cheaper than the infrastructure needed for gas stations. That's why you see EV chargers in parking lots everywhere here, so you can charge while you shop, work, etc.
4. Sure. What's the problem with that? If the companies are making money or getting subsidies, and there's a ROI, that's how the market works.
5. Battery tech is definitely the weakest link, but it's been improving rapidly, to the point where this is feasible now. It wasn't 10 years ago. As far as toxicity, so are gas fumes. And as far as waste, all of these battery types are recyclable. The biggest ding to battery tech is longevity, and that has improved quite a bit as well, but needs to improve further, IMO.
6. It just has to skyrocket to less or the same than what it costs me to run a gas powered car. Eventually that's going to be the litmus test for electric.
No one was talking to you, dip .
Gasoline engines will go away mostly in 1st world countries. I can see cities banning them in fact. They will probably still be present on boats and aircraft for quite some time, however most cities are clogged with cars that aren't going more than a few miles from home. Imagine if 90% of the cars were EV, how quiet and clean it would be.
"Fighting for the Underderp"
(DMC Bingo jpg.)
Exactly, doesn't have to be all or nothing. Just attacking the most common scenario is a big deal.
I own 50 on my House
Well said.
It is a good play for the NFP, because it is an easy case to make and accessible/impactful for a lot of people.
That is is dumb and dishonest, well that is sort of secondary.
330 miles per workday, assuming 22 workdays for each of 12 months.
It's the latest outrage de jour. Right wing media makes a -ton of money ginning up outrage, because facts and reasoned takes are boring.
I follow a few conservative groups on facebook, and thumb through fox "news" every few days. Always easy to see what ducks or Dupeboi will be posting about before they post it. Gas-prices popped up a week or so ago.Possibly.
But where do you think those people are told what to think?
It all boils back to the right-wing propaganda machine, led by the Fox propaganda network.
All true.
A lot of interesting things happening all at once:
They are already developing electric twin engine turbo props that appear to have vastly lower operating costs than their liquid fueled counterparts to the stage of putting them in production.
Larger planes are already in development, and I would guess they would have similar cost profiles, especially for short hauls.
As for ships, we could see a lot of them go back to wind power, probably with the same cost dynamic. Oooh the irony.
Sweden’s Wallenius Marine AB, which designs and builds ships, is currently testing a sleek white model of an “Oceanbird” automobile carrier in a bay in the Baltic Sea.
Per Tunell, Wallenius’ chief operating officer, said results from the seven-meter model were encouraging and that he was “very confident” the full-scale Oceanbird will be ready to order by the end of next year.
The sail-driven ship could be in service in 2024 on Atlantic routes, he said.
The Oceanbird will be 200 meters long with capacity to carry 7,000 cars. It may be the tallest sailing ship ever built, equipped with wing sails reaching 105 meters above the water.
The sails, however, look little like traditional billowing fabric sails, instead more closely resembling aircraft wings rising vertically from the deck.
The vessel will have engines as a backup, but aims to save 90% of carbon emissions compared to a conventional ship run on polluting bunker fuel.
It will take Oceanbird about 12 days to cross the Atlantic, compared to eight for a fuel-powered ship.
The design “could also be applied as a cruise vessel, a bulk carrier, a tanker,” Tunell said. “One of the key conditions is that it shall be commercially feasible.”
Oceanbird would probably cost a bit more than a conventional car carrier, he said, declining to estimate the exact price.
But operating costs would be lower, especially if governments trying to curb climate-changing emissions impose a price on carbon emissions from using fuel.
The Oceanbird is not the only emerging contender in the low-carbon shipping race.
Neoline in France is seeking orders for a smaller, 136-metre vessel, also suitable for transporting cars or farm machinery.
Like Oceanbird, it reckons its carrier could cut emissions by 90%.
(rest of article here
https://www.maritimeprofessional.com...d-cargo-363710 )
All of this technology will end up benefitting from the billions being poured into battery technology. The more energy per unit of mass you can pack into a battery, the more economical it gets for all modes of transportation and all this investment will be pushing that figure up each year.
As long (100+ years) as GHG C02, methane, etc remain in the atmosphere,
slowing GHG production will not remedy AGW.
Human, industrial civilization is ed and un able.
Capitalist oligarchy, insulated from the AGW catastrophe by their wealth, is now the main culprit, eg, corrupting Manchin to block CEPP and 1000s of other tactics in their strategy of amassing Capital w/o limit.
The State of Texas is already putting up massive numbers of wind turbines and solar panels.
So next time you charge YOUR EV, maybe give that a thought.
No but you were recasting your perceived minion's words fuk face.
In a completely disingenuous manner...
old fart.
Yeah the go finding them are dead miles. For gas its, "the next station on the highway". This will change. But for right now I get it.
Adapt or get left behind
once again, only considering work mileage without taking into account personal and pleasure mileage.
I have maybe drove to a work office 5 or 6 times since April 2020
Think of all that future dead infrastructure. No more gas tanker trucks, no more underground tanks. Charging stations will be everywhere, esp parking garages.
Convenience stores will be a dying breed. oil change shops... ditto.
A lot of disruption.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
