Read this about electric car emissions

[ckissick]

Interesting conclusions, something I've always suspected.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/electric-vehicles-in-germany-emit-more-carbon-dioxide-than-diesel-vehicles/?fbclid=IwAR2jibQVo3DjJw4g1Z0pXK-0MmX5kStRsaI_HXKBQgHj1CZsgoCLo3OTwIc

[biosurfer1]

LOL
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/pete-altman/who-are-these-guys-yet-more-polluter-funded-front-groups-hit-climate-scene

Ya, no bias at all at the IER🙄

[yellowline]

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

LOL
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/pete-altman/who-are-these-guys-yet-more-polluter-funded-front-groups-hit-climate-scene

Ya, no bias at all at the IER🙄

Mr Altman likes to say “debunked” a lot, with no context.

Meanwhile:

The NRDC was the main promoter of a hoax in that led to the “Great Apples Scare” of 1989. The group claimed that apples sprayed with the chemical Alar—a plant-growth regulating powder used to prevent the pre-harvest rotting of apples—could give people cancer. The NRDC claimed that “the average pre-schooler’s exposure was estimated to result in a cancer risk 240 times greater than the cancer risk considered acceptable by [the Environmental Protection Agency] following a full lifetime of exposure.”
...
A lab study conducted by the American Council on Science and Health in 1999 showed that a consumer would need to consume over 5,000 gallons of Alar-laced apple juice per day to reach the NRDC’s cancer risk claims. Dr. Richard Adamson, director of the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Etiology, later said: “The risk of eating an apple treated with Alar is less than the risk of eating a peanut butter sandwich or a well-done hamburger.”[20]

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/natural-resources-defense-council-nrdc/

[masraum]

Fortunately for all of us, there are so many groups that have no agenda/bias and are producing clear accurate data about what's what.

[biosurfer1]

Originally Posted by yellowline

Mr Altman likes to say “debunked” a lot, with no context.

Who funds him?

Probably as far left radicals as the far right radicals that fund the IER

Neither is independent and I wouldn't trust any of their "reasearch"

The Tobacco Institute never found anything wrong, addictive or unhealthy about cigarettes...shocking!

[Evans, Marv]

We've had an EV since late last year. I've known all along resources needed for manufacture of the batteries and power generation carry baggage associated with operating the EV. If I remember right, CA says it will be going strictly to EV's in the not too distant future. I have serious questions about how this will work out, especially considering the current electric generation and distribution structure which will need huge mods & improvements. I've been watching our difference in power consumption since we started using it and will get a clearer picture on the 19th of next month, when our "true up" date arrives. My saving grace is the fact we generate almost 3 megs of extra power a year through solar, which finances/off sets all or much of the difference in power consumption (on a net metering program) from the EV. In the future, there will be ways governments will tax EVs, and solar will be receiving much less considerations from the power companies. I know the local power company is already complaining about those with solar generation not carrying their share of the costs associated with generation and distribution. Right now I'm enjoying puttiing it to the utility company, which charges some of the highest rates in the nation. I figure there is about a ten year window to find out how things get sorted out. Some time through that period I'm hoping I'll see the path things will be going, so I can make a decision on the next way forward.

[GH85Carrera]

Marv, how often do you keep a car, a daily driver, for 10 years or more? Many people get a new car after 7 to 9 years regardless of mileage.

[Jay Auskin]

Originally Posted by Evans, Marv

We've had an EV since late last year. I've known all along resources needed for manufacture of the batteries and power generation carry baggage associated with operating the EV. If I remember right, CA says it will be going strictly to EV's in the not too distant future. I have serious questions about how this will work out, especially considering the current electric generation and distribution structure which will need huge mods & improvements. I've been watching our difference in power consumption since we started using it and will get a clearer picture on the 19th of next month, when our "true up" date arrives. My saving grace is the fact we generate almost 3 megs of extra power a year through solar, which finances/off sets all or much of the difference in power consumption (on a net metering program) from the EV. In the future, there will be ways governments will tax EVs, and solar will be receiving much less considerations from the power companies. I know the local power company is already complaining about those with solar generation not carrying their share of the costs associated with generation and distribution. Right now I'm enjoying puttiing it to the utility company, which charges some of the highest rates in the nation. I figure there is about a ten year window to find out how things get sorted out. Some time through that period I'm hoping I'll see the path things will be going, so I can make a decision on the next way forward.

There are a lot of aspects to EV's, power generation, and all things related to that. Back when Texas was freezing, the anti-EV crowd talked about how EV's would never work because of things like this. Nonsense. EV's could have actually stabilized the grid. This was a big source of power that could have diverted people from using the grid. Yes, there is a lot to make this a reality.

You need to have an EV that can actually switch to providing power to your home. I think only a Nissan LEAF can do that now?

The power company needs to play nice, and enable Vehicle-to-Grid technology. Good luck with that. Power companies want to sell power. When you're generating power via solar, or other and storing it in your vehicle for later use, the power companies lose.

Will every home eventually have an EV? Probably not for a while. Will every home be 50/50 ICE/EV? Maybe. A lot still needs to happen. But consider the source of any anti-EV data.

As biosurfer pointed out, I remember when my elementary school books actually said cigarettes weren't addictive, just "habit forming". Hmmm...who paid for that message?

[1990C4S]

Before people trot out the 'how can the grid ever supply enough power?' argument, look at the excess night capacity that presently exists, the growth of power generation over the last 20 years versus how much it would need to grow in the next 20 years, and the idea that EV's will eventually be a supply and a demand point.

Getting to 50% electric in urban areas is not crazy or unachievable.

[Flat Six]

Originally Posted by Evans, Marv

We've had an EV since late last year. I've known all along resources needed for manufacture of the batteries and power generation carry baggage associated with operating the EV. If I remember right, CA says it will be going strictly to EV's in the not too distant future. I have serious questions about how this will work out, especially considering the current electric generation and distribution structure which will need huge mods & improvements. I've been watching our difference in power consumption since we started using it and will get a clearer picture on the 19th of next month, when our "true up" date arrives. My saving grace is the fact we generate almost 3 megs of extra power a year through solar, which finances/off sets all or much of the difference in power consumption (on a net metering program) from the EV. In the future, there will be ways governments will tax EVs, and solar will be receiving much less considerations from the power companies. I know the local power company is already complaining about those with solar generation not carrying their share of the costs associated with generation and distribution. Right now I'm enjoying puttiing it to the utility company, which charges some of the highest rates in the nation. I figure there is about a ten year window to find out how things get sorted out. Some time through that period I'm hoping I'll see the path things will be going, so I can make a decision on the next way forward.

Marv, if you don't mind saying, which utility serves your area?

Originally Posted by Jay Auskin

...snip...

The power company needs to play nice, and enable Vehicle-to-Grid technology. Good luck with that. Power companies want to sell power. When you're generating power via solar, or other and storing it in your vehicle for later use, the power companies lose.

...snip...

Generally not true. Power companies want to make a profit, which is regulated by each state's PUC. The PUC agrees to some profit percentage, say 9.5 percent with some wiggle room like +/- 0.5 percent. If the utility makes more than 10 percent the overage is refunded to customers. If the utility makes less than 9 percent, a temporary rate adjustment (price hike) kicks in.

Power utilities like big-ticket capital projects like new/upgraded generating stations (whether coal, gas, solar, wind, hydro, etc.) and transmission/distribution infrastructure; because of the guaranteed profit percentage the larger and more predictable cost base means bigger $$$.

Every U.S. power utility I know of works this way.

Many rate cases (agreements between PUCs and utilities on how much can be charged for what purpose) specifically include an energy efficiency recapture clause. This is a mechanism designed to encourage utilities to drive energy conservation. If the utility can demonstrate its energy efficiency/energy reduction programs are effective at reducing energy use, the utility gets paid for the cost of the program plus the revenue lost from reduced use. That's why electric utilities offer programs and rebates to upgrade appliances, HVAC units, water heaters, heat pumps, and in some cases EE windows; they get $$. I don't know if this is universal, but I don't know of an electric utility in the U.S. that doesn't have an EE recapture clause in its rate case.

Electric utilities are profit-motivated to build infrastructure, including EV-to-grid. But the much more efficient and profitable route is to focus on commercial EVs (public transit/electric buses are the nirvana of this approach) because of the scale (bigger $$) and concentration (bigger projects in fewer locations).

[Jay Auskin]

In saying they want to generate power, that was perhaps over-simplified and not properly stated. I understand why stable profit generation is preferred. I wasn't going to get into that in my post, as I haven't researched much about it.

[biosurfer1]

Originally Posted by Flat Six

Power utilities like big-ticket capital projects like new/upgraded generating stations (whether coal, gas, solar, wind, hydro, etc.) and transmission/distribution infrastructure; because of the guaranteed profit percentage the larger and more predictable cost base means bigger $$$.

Every U.S. power utility I know of works this way.

The CPUC only governs investor owned utilities...there are a bunch in California who do not fall under their commission.

SMUD, Roseville Electric, SVCE, Modesto, and Redding to name a few.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Flat Six

If the utility can demonstrate its energy efficiency/energy reduction programs are effective at reducing energy use, the utility gets paid for the cost of the program plus the revenue lost from reduced use.

Thanks. I wondered why my utility company was sending me discount coupons for LED lights, etc. They were marketed as "DP&L Cares!"
Sounds like what they cared about was an alternate profit stream - milking the government vs milking their customers.

[Jims5543]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

Before people trot out the 'how can the grid ever supply enough power?' argument, look at the excess night capacity that presently exists, the growth of power generation over the last 20 years versus how much it would need to grow in the next 20 years, and the idea that EV's will eventually be a supply and a demand point.

Getting to 50% electric in urban areas is not crazy or unachievable.

We purchased an BMW i3 because my wife was commuting 500+ miles a week. Our JCW Mini Cooper S was costing us from 250-300 a month in gas at 2018 gas prices.

We sold the JCW and grabbed a CPO i3 and could not be happier with the car.

We have a Stage 2 charger in the garage and program it to come on at 1 in the morning.

Our electricity comes form a nearby Nuclear Plant, and our electric bill increased $40-$50 a month due to charging. We are easily getting 80 MPG with this thing and it needs nothing. 60K miles and the OEM brakes are at over 50% thanks to aggressive regenerative braking. You can drive this car completely with your right foot and never touch the brake pedal. I get mad at myself if I touch the brake, that means I was not looking far enough ahead and anticipating.

Yes, it was probably a much dirtier car to produce, once on the road, it needs little to keep going.

In our local downtown there is a solar powered free EV charging station we typically take advantage of it on weekends and save ourselves a whopping $1 that would be spent charging it. LOL!

I think the big earner in the near future is going to be retrofitting Condo's / hotels / townhomes and apartment complexes with individual parking space charging stations.

I think a company that specializes in this retrofitting will make a killing until all these places are finally caught up.

I was speaking to one of my custom home builders and asked him if he was offering a receptacle for a an EV charger in the garage. You could see the light bulb go off in his head. He is in the process of building a model home and is adding a EV charging station and an option to upgrade to one for his customers. I should get a kickback!!

Since covid my wife no longer commutes and wanted to get rid of the i3. I told her we should hang on to it and see how things play out. It looks like a solid plan to keep it around. Its a 2014 and shows very little degradation of the battery range.

[wdfifteen]

"A study in 2017 by researchers at the University of Michigan found that the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by electric cars varied wildly by country. The study found that an electric car recharged by a coal-fired plant produces as much carbon dioxide as a gasoline-powered car that gets 29 miles per gallon, which is a slightly higher efficiency than the 25.2 miles per gallon that is the average of all the cars, SUVs, vans, and light trucks sold in the United States over the past year. If the electricity comes from a natural gas plant, recharging a plug-in electric vehicle is akin to driving a car that gets 58 miles per gallon."

I don't really care, because I drive a lot of super polluting antique cars and trucks as well as a 2017 Tundra and my Chevy Volt. I like my Volt. It's nice to see someone admit that I'm not destroying the planet by driving an EV too.

[pavulon]

Have arrived at the conclusion that my next daily driver will likely be an electric. I commute about 80 miles round trip each work day and pay $0.0465/kwh. It just makes sense and there should be plenty of used options in a couple of years.

[Jims5543]

Originally Posted by pavulon

Have arrived at the conclusion that my next daily driver will likely be an electric. I commute about 80 miles round trip each work day and pay $0.0465/kwh. It just makes sense and there should be plenty of used options in a couple of years.

We have an i3 REX it gets 80-85 miles on a charge, got to go further? Hack in the Euro specs (a $40 app for your phone and a blue tooth com that plugs into your car) and you can turn on the range extender and get an additional 110 miles on 2 gallons of gas for a combined 195 mile range.

We really want a Tesla Model S and will probably get one in the next couple of year, I am all for a used one. I am all about letting the other chump take the depreciation hit.

Our i3 was 18K out the door, a 55K+ new car for less than 20K with a warranty and appeared to be brand new.

[Flat Six]

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

The CPUC only governs investor owned utilities...there are a bunch in California who do not fall under their commission.

SMUD, Roseville Electric, SVCE, Modesto, and Redding to name a few.

Yes, publicly owned utilities and cooperatives typically don't need PUC approval for rates (some states my vary, not sure) but still are regulated but to a far lesser extent.

Their capital structures are far different, too.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Jims5543

...Our i3 was 18K out the door, a 55K+ new car for less than 20K with a warranty and appeared to be brand new.

That is a deal! CF body... No way they are not selling those at a loss. Using sales to bolster their fleet mileage efficiency, I suspect.

Thing about electrics is that so many want these EV to be something they are not. They want these to be some "planet saving" tech. They are not. That i3 is a great example. -Carbon freaking fiber unibody. The Volt, those sold at a big loss too. I'm not knocking the engineering, nor the buyers. - people are getting some deals! Thing is, these cars can not stand on their own without being subsidized.

Until battery tech makes HUGE strides in energy density the EVs will take more energy than a competitive ICE car. Until then these are an interesting toy. -nothing wrong with toys. It's the preaching about how clean and wonderfully planet-saving smart these are that annoys me.

[Evans, Marv]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

Marv, how often do you keep a car, a daily driver, for 10 years or more? Many people get a new car after 7 to 9 years regardless of mileage.

Glen. I usually seem to keep my cars/trucks/vans for 16 yo 18 years, at least for the past three or four decades. I just bought a new Ford T-350 passenger van a year ago & sold the truck I'd owned since 2004. The van will probably be the last vehicle I buy for myself. We bought the Tesla for my wife, whose '12 Nissan coupe had 140K miles on it.