Are you gonna get an electric car anytime soon? (Or do you already have one?)

[Scott Jentsch]

If we're going to have to charge during the day, that creates another infrastructural hurdle.

I think the key take-away is that it isn't a "have to" situation, but rather a "best option" scenario. It's not a black-and-white, this-or-that, choice of diametrically opposed options.

There are times when some areas of the country are asked to reduce their energy usage and not run their AC on full blast for a few hours, so I can imagine that those energy-strapped areas may also have a "don't charge your car if you don't have to tonight, wait until tomorrow" advisories, but if you needed to, you gotta do what you gotta do. Some EVs have a way to step down the charging rate, so you could plug in your car and tell it to charge super-slow (or tell it to wait to start charging until 1am or some other time), which would reduce your energy usage during peak periods. Maybe you choose to set your AC thermostat higher for a few hours, so the EV can charge without putting a strain on things. It's good to have options.

It's been interesting to hear the reports coming out of Florida about the availability of gas and the availability of electricity, and what people with EVs are doing in the aftermath of hurricane Ian. One guy in the Orlando area drove his Tesla around to several gas stations that had power but no gas. (Keep in mind that if there is no electricity, gas stations can't pump gas even if they have it) Some Tesla Superchargers in the area were down, but the mapping software showed him which were operating, and he had no issues charging his car. Other reports of F-150 Lightning owners using them as generators to provide their homes with emergency power.

I'm sure that there are also instances of EV owners that are having issues because the power is out for many miles around. It's not a one-size-fits-all situation, and EVs are not perfect in all situations, but neither are they useless in all situations either.

[Martin Brooks]

My co-op in NYC just installed chargers in our garage although they're not turned on yet. They installed one for every two cars. No one has an EV yet.

My current car is a 2003 Honda Accord. I am planning to buy an EV. I was waiting for the charger installation. I was planning on buying the Hyundai Ioniq 5, but I wanted the upper trims which are no longer available within 500 miles of me right now. But now they've announced the sedan version, the 2023 Ioniq 6, which gets a bit more range - it's probably going to be rated at about 350 vs. 303 for the Ioniq 5. Since EV's get far less range in very hot and very cold weather, I want all the range I can get because I travel to my daughter's house which is 125 miles away and I'd prefer to do it without stopping to recharge on the way home.

At a high speed charger, the Ioniqs can go from 10% to 80% in 18 minutes (24 minutes in very cold weather). But using a standard 240v charger, it takes about 7 hours to get a full charge. Hyundai gives you two years of free charging at Electrify America chargers, but there aren't enough of them (yet).

One of the things I like about some of the EV's is not just that they're EV's - is that the designers have rethought what the interior of a car should be like.

If I made trips longer than that trip to my daughter's house, I probably would not yet consider an EV. But I think within five years, range and charging times are no longer going to be issues. I think I heard on the news today that New York State is doing what California has already announced -- no ICE new car registrations after 2035 (I assume used ICE cars will be still be permitted after that date.). (I bet an awful lot of 2034 ICE cars will be sold in that year by consumers who don't want to go electric.). They're in the process of rebuilding all of the rest stops on the New York State Thruway and when complete, which will probably take several years, they're all going to have high-speed chargers. I just need one to open, just in case.

If gas prices had remained high (in the U.S.), I think there might have been a trend towards faster EV adoption. But with gas prices falling (I saw $3.20 today), I think there's no economic case unless someone drives upwards of 30,000 miles per year and even though there aren't going to be a lot (or any?) ICE cars built after 2035, I think we'll see ICE cars on the road until at least 2050. It will be a very slow transition.

-----
As far as modern commuter trains are concerned, the U.S. is clearly behind the rest of the world. However, I don't believe we need coast-to-coast trains because I agree with those who argue that for trips like that, people will still fly. But I think high-speed trains make a lot of sense between relatively close cities - maybe up to 1000 miles apart, but probably not more than that. Acela on the east coast promised high-speed rail, but it's only high speed in one very small section between NYC and Boston. It's a nice train, but it still takes too long. If we're going to get people out of their cars, it needs to be both beautiful and fast.

[Leo Enticknap]

If we're going to have to charge during the day, that creates another infrastructural hurdle. I would speculate that most EV owners now have garages (or off road parking such as a driveway or car port), in which they plug in when they get home from work and unplug as they leave the next morning. The advantage of this arrangement is that the chargers can be installed gradually, as homeonwers buy EVs and install the chargers along with that purchase.

If charging at home and overnight is not going to be allowed, pretty much every workplace is going to need to provide a charger at every parking spot: if they don't and an EV owner can't charge at home overnight, then people are not going to buy EVs. And if these workplace chargers do appear, they will likely be financed like the ones I mentioned above, with the result that EV owners will pay way more for the electricity that goes into them than if they were charging from their household supply, thereby negating the main selling point of these things (lower fuel cost).

[Scott Jentsch]

As a follow-up, I just read an article that talked about the fact that EV charging in some areas will be better done in the early daytime hours, due to the availability/abundance of solar energy at those times. That would mean that employers offering EV charging will have an advantage over those that don't. It also means that optimizing charging is not a one-size-fits-all situation, and that flexibility is a feature not a bug when it comes to addressing energy needs going forward.

[Leo Enticknap]

Another way to power electric cars is fuel cells. I remember seeing a demo fuel cell powered car a long time ago.

They did go into serial production, though interestingly, Honda pulled out (2021 was the last model year for the Clarity), presumably because they've read the political direction things are taking, and are now concentrating on developing BEVs. As I understand it, the big problems have been the cost, complexity, and reliability of the hydrogen-into-electricity part of the powertrain, and the fact that only something like five hydrogen filling stations exist in the entirety of California (and not much more in the rest of the country), charging customers significantly more than the gas to drive the equivalent mileage.

I guess the big challenge with a hydrogen-fueled ICE would be to prevent the water by-product from causing corrosion and other issues to the engine components. Around a century ago, the Zeppelin Company was experimenting around this idea. As an airship burns fuel (conventional, i.e. gasoline or diesel), it gets lighter, and therefore the amount of aerostatic lift required decreases. Conventionally, pilots would simply release hydrogen from valves in the top of the airframe into the atmosphere to get rid of unwanted aerostatic lift, but the stuff was pretty expensive, which led to the idea of developing an engine that could burn both regular liquid fuel during the early stages of a flight, gradually shifting to unwanted hydrogen in the later ones. I can't now remember the details as to why, but they could not develop an engine that enabled this. They ended up using blaugas instead, which did work as a dual fuel with the engine technology available at the time, and achieved the same weight and balance objective (avoided the need to jettison a large quantity of hydrogen in flight, only to have to replace it at the next landing).

[Harold Hallikainen]

This discussion got me thinking (always dangerous!). Another way to power electric cars is fuel cells. I remember seeing a demo fuel cell powered car a long time ago. I've read recently about further developments in hydrogen fuel cells. The same article also mentioned the possibility of hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine. I wonder how overall efficiency compares to use of batteries. I also wonder about emissions. Ideally, the hydrogen would just burn to water. But with other components in the air (such as nitrogen), we might get various pollutants we don't want. Anyone have ideas on hydrogen powered ICE?

[Leo Enticknap]

Drive-ins already keep a few "jump start carts" for use when customers discover a flat battery when they attempt to leave at the end of the show (typically 2-3 after each screening), so I guess that EV chargers will make these a thing of the past.

[Steve Guttag]

Wait a minute. People are going to try an profit over a forced/required service? Shocker.

That said, if it cost the same to drive an EV to a movie as it would a gas powered vehicle, who cares? They still are not spewing tailpipe emissions out and cost wise, going to the movies (or going out) is, typically going to be more than staying at home. Is the movie patron REQUIRED to plug in? If not, it is a service of convenience to ensure people will have the power to get home (or, more importantly, to get out of the Drive-In so it is someone else's problem!).

[Leo Enticknap]

It is just reasonable to believe that destinations will start offering (if not outright required in order to incentivize EV adoption) EV charging, at some level.

This is already happening in California. A drive-in I service wants to do some remodeling to change from two screens to three in their lot, and has been told by the city that the necessary permits will only be granted if the project also involves installing EV chargers. Apparently the city now adds that requirement to all zoning change approvals and/or lot development that requires city approval.

As a result of this, numerous vendors have appeared that offer to install these things on a profit sharing basis (the business hosting the chargers pays nothing up front, and receives a small percentage of the revenue they generate). The problem is that these charge the EV owners as much if not more than they would pay for gas to cover the equivalent distance.

[Lyle Romer]

To expand on the elephant in the room that Steve just brought up...

The U.S. power grid is severely stressed and extremely antiquated in a lot of areas. It can barely cope with the current demands, and adding a bunch of EV chargers WILL push it over the edge.

I agree with those who pointed out that solar + EV is a great idea, and would make the most sense, both in eco friendly and economically.

BUT, of all the ICE cars out there, think about the percentage of current owners who can ACTUALLY afford BOTH the EV AND the costs of adding/converting to solar? That figure will be in the single digits or low double digits.

I recently priced out an off-grid, 10kw solar system and even that costs well over $14,000.00 with me doing ALL of the installation work. I think (I haven't tried to contact any of the companies as once you contact one, you get bombarded with calls, emails and texts from all of them to get quotes) my modest system installed by one of those solar companies will be over $22,000 or more. Keep in mind that a grid-tie system (that can feed power back to the grid) costs even more.

And speaking of grid tie, yet another problem with our current infrastructure is that the same antiquity means that the protection and control system for the grid can't cope with a large increase in power outside of it's direct control being fed back into the system. Some serious outages and equipment failures have already happened in a few areas due to this problem.

For the switchover to work, it MUST be done in a methodical fashion, over a time span of 10-15 years, and not pushed by legislation. The power grid, EV technology, and EV Range must ALL get significant upgrades for the complete conversion to work. I project that 2040 would be a REASONABLE goal to shoot for.

To answer the OP question, I will not be getting an EV anytime soon. I live in a rural area and even a simple grocery run can be over 100 miles round trip. I do too much driving at the current time for an EV. Plus I need the 3/4 ton truck I do drive, (RAM pickup with the 5.7, which still does 20mpg average) for work and my dirtbike.

You are correct. The upfront cost of an "off the grid" solar system makes it not practical. Essentially, I calculated that if I paid cash for it I'm basically pre-paying 10 years worth of electric bills. If I finance then it is even longer. Then I have to consider if I will still live here in 10 years and if there will be any major maintenance or replacement cost. I'm sure (being in Florida) that my homeowner's insurance would increase due to the risk of the panels being damaged by a hurricane.

I agree with all of your other points. With current technology an EV really only makes sense if you have a reasonable commute and your driving habits combined with the range makes it so all of your charging can be done overnight at home. If you live in a rural area like you do and need to potentially haul heavy loads it just isn't practical right now. Let's see what the F-150 lightening range is when towing a trailer in terrain with elevation changes.

[Scott Jentsch]

https://esource.bizenergyadvisor.com...tail-buildings

Thanks Frank!

Using the 18.3 kWh/square foot average, there was a new Fleet Farm retail store approved nearby this summer. 137,000 square feet.

According to my calculations, that would result in electric usage of 2,507,100 kWh/year, or 6,869 kWh/day.

Using my example of 14 kWh/day for one EV that needs to be charged to go 50 miles/day, that one store will be using electricity equivalent to 491 EVs per day. Now imagine a freeway interchange strip mall that contains 5-10 of these stores, plus smaller stores to fill in the gaps. And that's just one interchange.

It doesn't matter how many customers that store serves, because no one is going to be concerned about the grid being able to keep up on a per-customer basis. My point in bringing up movie theaters and retail stores is that no one ever talks about the electrical requirements of businesses when development is being proposed. If the grid were so fragile and in so much need of protection from such energy usage, we would hear more about it, wouldn't we?

I'll allow for the fact that since I'm not in an area that suffers from brownouts and energy shutdowns, it may just not be something I'm aware of. But that's why I'm asking the questions.

The State of Wisconsin has just recently gotten its EV Infrastructure Plan approved by the federal government. Granted, Wisconsin is not a hotbed of EV adoption due to its mix of rural and urban areas, but these are estimates that might hold some value to this conversation.

EV Registrations in the state (% of total)

• 2022: 9,039 (0.1%)
• 2027: 217,048 (4.1%)
• 2035: 553,686 (9.9%)
• 2050: 1,863,585 (31%)

My guess is that we're much lower in these adoption rates than more populous and more urban states, but I was surprised that they are predicting only 31% of all vehicles registered 28 years from now will be EV.

Another takeaway from this report is that they did analyze electric utilities and grid capacity as part of their plan. While the regional power system predicted that entities in its region had the potential for energy shortages, Wisconsin had capacity for its current needs and that we would continue to have sufficient capacity based on the projected EV adoption rates.

1.8 million EVs (the 2050 projection) represents 15% of Wisconsin's total power generation in 2021. My guess is that we'll be generating much more electricity in 2050, so I'm pretty sure we'll be good.

My apologies to everyone for going off on this tangent if you're not interested, but I'm not one to leave misconceptions go unchallenged. There are plenty of specific reasons why an individual may determine that buying the current crop of EVs is not suitable for them. Looking at those reasons accurately should be part of that determination process. My original point was that there are many misconceptions about EVs that tend to get repeated by those unaware of whether they are true or not.

Using grid capacity as a negative when it comes to EV adoption is a red herring, IMO.

If you've never driven an EV, I encourage you to check them out. The selection is going to be much larger a year from now than it is now, but you can get everything from a little city/commuter car (Bolt EUV, Mini Cooper) to a pickup (F-150 Lightning, Rivian) to performance cars (Porsche Taycan, Tesla Model S Plaid). If you like road trips, watch the road trip videos where people are taking them cross-country. If you like off-road adventures, check out the videos where people are taking EV pickups off the beaten path and up and down mountains, and powering their campers from their EVs.

Just a few years ago, it was a rarity that I would see a Tesla on the road, much less any other EV. Now, it's a rarity where I do not see multiple Teslas and other EVs. There are good reasons why that is, and the trend is only going to continue. I'm looking forward to the market relaxing a little and maybe we can get rid of the $5,000-$15,000 dealer markups on vehicles, and more competition should help bring more innovations and lower prices as well. In the meantime, I have to keep my current cars running so that I'm ready for that day!

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

My comments in bold, edited quotation of OP to save some space.

<snip>

For those regions that face power problems and electric customers are asked to curb their energy usage during peak periods, they're accustomed to deferring their usage.

Maybe but that is not true in all regions and unless the utility has smart meters where they can remotely cut off power in a grid emergency it wont help much. There are too many entitled people who don't care and won't follow voluntary shifts in energy usage.

. However, when two new subdivisions were built up nearby with over 200 homes, no one was yelling about how the grid wouldn't be able to handle the additional load those houses represented. Our power outages in recent years have been from trees falling on power lines, not from an over-stressed grid (so we've been told anyway). That's not to say it's not an issue in other regions, but the condition of the grid everywhere is largely one of will not ability.

No one will be screaming about reliability until they experience a massive outage like the Great East Coast Blackout and the one on the West Coast. The weakness of the grid outside YOUR territory WILL eventually take you area down too as they are ALL (with the exception of Texas) INTERCONNECTED. It is only a matter of time before it happens to you.

As for the condition, ability does play into the state of the grid as urban sprawl and other factors make upgrades logistically difficult, but the REAL problem in six-figure CEOs who worry more about their own pockets than the state of the utility they operate. Two of California's majors are prime examples of corporate mismanagement resulting in a system that is mostly stuck in the 60's (and older) in design and capacity.

ISince we're dreaming of a future that does not yet exist, it's also very possible that such EV charging parking garages could be backed up by batteries and quite possibly charged with solar panels to alleviate peak energy events.

See my post about the costs. Corporations aren't immune to reluctance to spend the money to upgrade.

While I admit that mass EV adoption in 2022 could create some issues for existing power grids in some areas of the country, we're not going to see such mass adoption in 2022. Most car companies are looking at 2035 to phase out gas vehicles completely and California's gas vehicle sales ban takes effect in 2035 as well. That gives us more than 10 years to build a grid that is more robust, using technology to reduce energy usage and smoothe energy peak usage by homes and businesses, and implementing energy generation and storage techniques to deliver power efficiently and intelligently. Will it happen? I don't know. Should it happen? Why not?

Many utility upgrades take a lot more than 10 years, thanks to regulatory, environmental studies, and NIMBY holdups. Will it happen? It has to or the entire grid will fail beyond recovery. Should it happen? Yes.

Holding to past behaviors that have become second nature is just that, holding on to the past. EVs being sold today won't work the best for every single use case, but once again, no one is taking away your gas car tomorrow. Technology will improve. Efficiency will improve. The electrical grid will improve. Looking at today and saying that our current situation is justification for not looking forward to something better isn't what I do and it isn't what history has shown us happens over time.

On those points I agree with you.

[Frank Cox]

What is the electric consumption of an 8-screen movie theater, or a WalMart/Home Depot per day?

retail buildings in the US use an average of 18.3 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per square foot and 34,300 Btu of natural gas per square foot. In a typical retail building, lighting, cooling, and heating represent about 60% of total use

https://esource.bizenergyadvisor.com...tail-buildings

[Steve Guttag]

Scott...first off...scroll even further back to post #4 where I detail potential uses, recharge strategies so you don't need to regurgitate all of that over again. Here is a handy link http://www.film-tech.com/vbb/forum/f...3645#post23645

Forget about $$$ for right now. It doesn't matter, when it comes to grid infrastructure. It is about capacity. The reason your Walmart or theatre examples are silly is because while yes they consume roughly the same electricity for 1 versus 1000...they are sized to accommodate the anticipated consumption. If an 8 plex had 8 people in it (1 per auditorium)...they'd be shutting down pretty fast...even if they did boutique cinemas that catered to small numbers.

Let's keep it to just electricity. To have a 30A/240 (or 208 in commercial, due to 3-phase) (level-2) charger, you are going to need 7.2KW/h capacity for that receptacle. Do you know of many theatres running 7KW lamps on each screen? Setting aside lasers, for the moment, you are going to find that the vast majority of cinemas run on 2KW-4KW lamps...or 1/3 to 1/2 the power. The power to run one show (no including A/C, for the moment) in a typically sized cinema that uses those lamps is going to serve 50-400 seats (depends on recliners, seat-back-to-seat-back). Even before adding in for A/C (which is also person dependent...more people puts more heat load on the system...but that scales nicely). You're down at .4KW/h to run movies in a typical cinema...with laser, you can cut to closer to 0.1KW/h per person.

But in a retail store...again, they are going to build based on the number of people they service to make the space the most efficient. If they over build the store, their real estate price grows too.

The reason the grid is going to get taxed is looking at the point where EVs are the norm. It is just reasonable to believe that destinations will start offering (if not outright required in order to incentivize EV adoption) EV charging, at some level. Office parking garages are a logical one because they are going to be, nominally 8-hour stays. You'd want level-2 charging at some level or the worker may not get enough charge to get home...it all depends on how far one has to drive to work. For me and my wife, we range in the 40-60 miles each way. Level-1 charging isn't going to do it. The person that could live on level-1 charging, for work, should probably be using mass transit because, clearly, they aren't going far. The need for the vehicle would be to carry things.

You are going to have to support Level-2 charging 24/7 for every car anticipated on the road. That is the infrastructure that needs to be there...on top of existing electric demands. Certainly, things can be augmented with solar, at destinations but to not have the infrastructure to have that capacity...it will be perpetually on the brink of brownouts and failures. The big benefit to power production is that it will balance it out to more of a 24-hour cycle rather than peaks. The down side will be the cost and without regulation, you'll see health care like prices spiral out of control. You'll have a 100% demand market.

[Scott Jentsch]

You example of an 8-screen movie theatre or Walmart or other commercial business is poor. What is the electric consumption per patron in those businesses?

That's why I asked. What is the electric consumption of an 8-screen movie theater, or a WalMart/Home Depot per day? I have no idea. It doesn't really matter how much energy per customer, because I would imagine that the cost of operating a big box store is roughly the same whether you have one customer or you have 100 or 1000.

But we can figure out how much electricity it would take to charge an EV at home. Of course, some assumptions have to be made, and everyone's situation will vary, but there has to be a point of reference to use as an example.

So, let's take a Tesla Model Y with an EPA rating of 28 kWh / 100 miles. Let's assume that we need to charge 50 miles of usage per day, but that's probably on the high side of what people would need. My wife commutes 20 miles per day of city driving (round trip), which would use less battery than the EPA test calls for. Even if I worked downtown and took the streets and freeways on a 35 mile round trip commute, rush hour means that the average speed is far below the EPA tested speeds, so I'm guessing that the efficiency would still be pretty good.

From a cost perspective, at an average of $0.15 per kWh, that means it will cost $2.10 per day to charge at home. (Compare to almost $6 per day for a gas vehicle that gets 30 mpg and $3.50 / gallon)

From a time perspective, a Tesla wall connector can charge up to 11.5 kW on a 48 amp setting, so it would only take about 1.25 hours to charge at that setting. Cutting it down to a more manageable 24 amp setting (more compatible with older homes with lower service) doubles the time to 2.5 hours. Definitely doable overnight, which is when electric grid loads are lower (and many power companies offer cheaper rates).

From an energy usage perspective, that means that you will be using 14 kWh per day of additional electricity for one vehicle. That would be equivalent to running a 3kW electric dryer for 4.65 hours or a central AC unit that consumes 2.275 kW for 6.16 hours per day.

For those regions that face power problems and electric customers are asked to curb their energy usage during peak periods, they're accustomed to deferring their usage. What's easier? Telling a person that they can't have air conditioning until 10pm or that they have to wait to charge their EV until then? In theory, you could set your EV to charge at the lowest speed possible in order to reach a particular percentage by morning, which would spread the load even more.

For your scenario of three people and therefore three vehicles that need to have 50 miles of charge topped off every single day, all three could be recharged consecutively at 5.75 kW in 7.5 hours.

In my personal situation, my home currently uses 700-800 kWh per month. If we replaced our vehicles with EVs completely and we drive about 1,250 miles per month, that would estimate our EV charging needs to be about 350 kWh. So, roughly a 50% increase over what we're currently using. That's not insignificant, but I don't think it's outrageous either. It's also assuming that we would do 100% of our charging at home, which wouldn't be the case. However, when two new subdivisions were built up nearby with over 200 homes, no one was yelling about how the grid wouldn't be able to handle the additional load those houses represented. Our power outages in recent years have been from trees falling on power lines, not from an over-stressed grid (so we've been told anyway). That's not to say it's not an issue in other regions, but the condition of the grid everywhere is largely one of will not ability.

I just re-read your message and you say that people are going to be charging their EVs in parking garages while at work, during the day, which is during peak energy usage periods. I see some holes in that theory, as not very many (if any) parking garages are filled with level 2 chargers now, and I can't imagine how that would become a thing in the future. But even if it would happen, it's also very possible that such chargers would be configured to slow their charge rates or discontinue charging altogether if a power emergency required it. Since we're dreaming of a future that does not yet exist, it's also very possible that such EV charging parking garages could be backed up by batteries and quite possibly charged with solar panels to alleviate peak energy events.

While I admit that mass EV adoption in 2022 could create some issues for existing power grids in some areas of the country, we're not going to see such mass adoption in 2022. Most car companies are looking at 2035 to phase out gas vehicles completely and California's gas vehicle sales ban takes effect in 2035 as well. That gives us more than 10 years to build a grid that is more robust, using technology to reduce energy usage and smoothe energy peak usage by homes and businesses, and implementing energy generation and storage techniques to deliver power efficiently and intelligently. Will it happen? I don't know. Should it happen? Why not?

Holding to past behaviors that have become second nature is just that, holding on to the past. EVs being sold today won't work the best for every single use case, but once again, no one is taking away your gas car tomorrow. Technology will improve. Efficiency will improve. The electrical grid will improve. Looking at today and saying that our current situation is justification for not looking forward to something better isn't what I do and it isn't what history has shown us happens over time.