I think you better plan to spend the night. It’s not that it’s not doable, it’s just more annoying. Until it gets easier, that keeps people out of the electric car market.
That’s my point. The tipping point is not just the price and the range, but also giving people some comfort that they’re going to be able to use their vehicle whenever they want, and they’re not gonna be left stranded somewhere either without a charging station or having to wait hours to recharge. We’re still a long way from that point. Which I think was the point of the video. I’ve forgotten.
Battery tech is going to keep improving. HH’s points are certainly valid right now, but 10 years from now the tradeoffs will be decent.
The electricity generation question is going to the big one to confront. Nuclear plan designs from the '50s and '60s are obviously not great, but I don’t think that means that we couldn’t come up with better designs if we put some money and effort into the research. But right now the stigma is so great that nobody is willing to invest in research.
This is an issue for major cities where those with cars park on the street. The immediate solution is local charging stations where they can get a full charge in a reasonable time - they’re unlikely to be people who have a long commute, so a weekly charge might work for them.
The bottom line is that there is not a perfect solution for everyone and, when the majority shifts to to EVs, there will be people who will be inconvenienced.
This is an extremely specific, unique even, scenario. This isn’t the norm for the vast, vast majority of people, who drive their car from home to work, maybe via their kids school on the way and via the grocery store on the way home. For all of that, an EV is spectacularly better than a gasoline-powered vehicle.
For the extraordinarily rare and random times when the EV isn’t convenient, you plan around it. Better to have a solution for the overwhelming norm than something that sucks for the norm but can drive you to the top of Mount Everest on a whim.
Infrastructure build-out is a big issue. I think the broader adoption of EVs will force the issue, but nobody knows what that will look like. The advent of energy storage at homes and, more importantly, grid scale storage makes the future energy mix uncertain. Gas powered peaker units are popular because of their fast start-up times, but that may not be necessary with sufficient storage, whether chemical batteries or otherwise.
I don’t think anybody knows how much “base load” demand will exist with widespread storage. In today’s electricity market, there is value in being able to cycle your plant to follow demand, Fairly recently, I designed and installed some equipment at Parish Station in Thompsons, Texas near Houston. That equipment helps one of their units change from baseload power to stand-by operation that can come up to full load in about 20 minutes. I don’t think this trend will continue. Sufficient storage means that production will no longer have to be precisely matched to demand. Power plants can simply operate at their optimum and charge the storage with any excess. This will change power production of all types dramatically.
Theoretically, there could be enough solar and wind to charge enough batteries to supply all the electricity we could ever want. I don’t think it will be that simple. I do not think traditional nuclear power, that is 250 to 500 MW BWR or PWR reactors, will be built in the US anymore. I do think the newly approved by the NRC SMR reactors will have an important roll to play. I like the inherent safety and scalability of the designs.
1 Like
Could we all buy gasoline generators to charge our EVs?
The research (and application) is there as a part of the military industrial complex. There are new, modern, hyper-efficient and safe nuclear reactors built all the time. If the will was there, converting those modernized technologies to civilian use would be easy.
I think some type of nuclear power is the only viable long-term solution, whatever it may look like. Solar and wind are fraught with all sorts of issues with implementing on a large scale, mostly notably that they are inconsistent and require an enormous footprint, which isn’t exactly “saving the planet”. Certainly that technology can get better and more efficient, but safe, reliable, consistent, and basically infinite power is available with nuclear. This will free up the remaining oil supply for use on the really important things like coronavirus drugs and smart phone cases.
All good points. I would add that the wider adoption of solar panels/tiles on homes will further disrupt the current energy demand cycles. If homes are equipped to generate some or all of their own requirements, it will remove such demand from the grid.
Congrats! You just invented the plug-in hybrid.
Unless and until there is a way for a nuclear plant not to generate incredibly dangerous waste that takes centuries to be rendered safe, it’s always going to have a stigma.
Large footprint? It would take about 4,000 sq. miles of PV panels to satisfy the US’ power needs. That’s less than half the size of the Houston metro area.
You might want to ask the people of Fukushima if they think nuclear is safe and reliable.
It’s too bad that nuke plants can only be built on coastlines in earthquake-prone, tsunami-prone parts of the world.
1 Like
13,750,000 acres = 21484.394 square miles
OK. The article I saw the number I quoted had been fact-checked, but I’m not going to argue that point. If 21,484 square miles is the right number, that’s still only about twice the size of the Houston metro area…to provide enough power for the entire US demand.
Footprint isn’t the issue.
1 Like
So about one Panhandle County? I can’t decide whether I’d offer up Lubbock or Amarillo first.
Take off and solar panel them both from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
2 Likes
No, transmission is the issue. You can’t have a single footprint.
Right, so with solar you can place the “generators” closer to the customer, like directly on their roof. You will still need transmission to move power around just like we do now, to supplement less sunny regions or times of the year, but we already have a grid infrastructure. What deploying solar/batteries does is slow the need to grow it to meet ever-expanding demand.
A wholistic response: deploying new solar and wind (no vanes required these days), hydro and geothermal, while phasing out when practical fossil fuels and nuclear, is well within our grasp technologically and financially. It just takes the willpower to do it - and not having Joe Manchin and the 50th vote.
1 Like