So I'm looking at getting an EV and have been learning a lot about them, batteries etc. Wondering if anyone here is driving one? Has any experience with them?
Avon wrote to All <=-
So I'm looking at getting an EV and have been learning a lot about
them, batteries etc. Wondering if anyone here is driving one? Has any experience with them?
So I'm looking at getting an EV and have been learning a lot about them, batteries etc. Wondering if anyone here is driving one? Has any
experience with them?
esc wrote to Avon <=-
I have a 2018 Fiat 500E - a compliance car that was only sold in California and Oregon for a few years. Stellantis lost like $15k on
each one of these sold, it's actually a fantastic little commuter.
The downside to me is that I don't get a ton of range with this
vehicle, but it made me a believer in the technology. If you can swing getting solar on your home, it even sweetens the deal.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Avon <=-
7. Idiots in diesel trucks love to get in front and "roll coal" -
flooring it so you get swamped in diesel smoke. Idiots. They like to
park their trucks to block public chargers, too.
When they can make solar efficient enough to contribute to range, we'll
be in a good place. Toyota made a "solar roof" for the Prius, but all it did was power the interior fans.
With the price of gas nowadays, I'm doing back-of-the-envelope
efficiency, but there are a bunch of charging stations in Sacramento and
When they can make solar efficient enough to contribute to range, we'll be in a good place. Toyota made a "solar roof" for the Prius, but all it did was power the interior fans.
You must have far better pricing than we do. We're around $2/L, roughly a quart. That's mostly become our baseline and it heads up towards $2.30 from there.
You also must have far more charging stations than us too. There was a group of Journos here that made a trip from Melbourne to Sydney, ~900Km with a detour to Canberra after they got to Sydney. We have a good set of mountains in between, and they found they could only drive for 2-3hrs and then have to recharge for ~2hrs as well. A large proportion of chargers were either not compatible or wouldn't charge their vehicle at all or at a reduced charge rate. They ended up getting towed back into Sydney from Canberra.
You also must have far more charging stations than us too. There was
Around here, we have level 1 charging (110v, under 15 amps), Level 2 (220v, somewhere between 16 and 40 amps) and DC charging (480v). I can fully charge with a DC charger in around an hour - and worst case I have the gas range extender if needed. The apps can tell you which are in use,
Spectre wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I don't know how many types of charger we have. I know there are "fast" and "standard". The problem the guys in the Canberra detour ran into,
was the chargers were either broken, or not suitable for their vehicle.
Tesla has the biggest network in the US and is going to strong arm manufacturers into licensing their connector for cars - some
manufacturers have already agreed to do so.
I've got a range extender, so I could always use that, too.
I just saw a video on YouTube yesterday saying Toyota has made
significant progress developing a car engine that runs on ammonia and produces very little pollution. Supposedly this could be a considerable alternative to electric vehicles and hybrids:
Tesla has the biggest network in the US and is going to strong arm manufacturers into licensing their connector for cars - some
manufacturers have already agreed to do so.
Fairly true, but in the long run is probably cheaper.
Probably true, and the solution to that is simply..... education. I would think the eco-fanatics would be leading the way on that, but somehow .... even they lack education.
Blue White wrote to esc <=-
The reason it is big news is because most EV power is generated by
fossil fuel, so you are trading off having the emmissions come out of
your car vs. the local coal plant.
Spectre wrote to Gamgee <=-
Fairly true, but in the long run is probably cheaper.
Apparently not... at least for some ~50 years of operation.. the
up front costs outweigh any saving in actual power generation for
a large proportion of your traditional reactors operational life.
Sabine Hossenfelder popped out an interesting video on it
recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k
One of the other things that popped up was if we turn heavily to
fission based generation we only have sufficient fuel for a very
limited time.. 10-20 years worth of uranium.
Probably true, and the solution to that is simply..... education. I would think the eco-fanatics would be leading the way on that, but somehow .... even they lack education.
Not sure education is sufficient to overcome greenwashing of
nuclear anything being "Baaahhhhhd". Unfortunately education is
probably still going to scare some proportion of the population
off the idea as well. Greenies, especially modern ones seem to
be less interested in science and education, compared to blindly
following some crackpot, or crackpot ideas. Its obtained
something of a religious fervor.
The reason it is big news is because most EV power is generated by fossil fuel, so you are trading off having the emmissions come out of your car vs. the local coal plant.
They are not going to find enough alternate fuel to cover the increased demand of everyone switching to EVs. Maybe one day, but not likely in
our lifetime and certainly not by 2035.
What would be better for the environment, though - 1000 internal combustion engines or 1000 EVs pulling energy from a grid consisting of coal, wind, and solar?
Sure, now it's mostly coal. Renewable is picking up momentum.
TL;DR ... That's more of just a question of "green-ness", anyway.
Got to disagree with that completely. These sources would agree with
Those estimates run from 80 - 200 years, and maybe MUCH longer (breeder reactors). In my opinion, that is long enough for us to get things
reactors). In my opinion, that is long enough for us to get things figured out and use another source, such as thorium; or hopefully,
fusion.
I still stand firmly in the camp of nuclear as the solution.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Blue White <=-
What would be better for the environment, though - 1000 internal
combustion engines or 1000 EVs pulling energy from a grid consisting
of
coal, wind, and solar?
Sure, now it's mostly coal. Renewable is picking up momentum.
hollowone wrote to Blue White <=-
I agree. I'm more interested in remote work as a factor that can
trigger lower emissions than this.. even if I include continual suburbanization as disturbing argument.
and more local shopping plus better logistics to deliver goods and services locally may both trigger accelerated adoption of EVs for just local, super short distance commuting and less need for commuting you can't do by bike anyway.
My grand parents when they were young they were all commuting by bikes more than cars.. I think I'll be a grand father to kids who while
adults become more stick to bikes and scooters than cars too..
-h1
... Xerox Alto was the thing. Anything after we use is just a mere
copy.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbs>>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
Spectre wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
What would be better for the environment, though - 1000 internal combustion engines or 1000 EVs pulling energy from a grid consisting of coal, wind, and solar?
Sure, now it's mostly coal. Renewable is picking up momentum.
Even at the poor nominal efficieny of your ICE, given the laws of thermodynamics in the power generation chain, I expect ICE is still
going to be better. Its pretty unlikely renewables will ever be able supply majority power. Given that you're going to wildly increase power consumption by giving everyone an EV and you're taking away some of the best possible generation we have.
More people need to travel less
The idea that "all those cars pollute so much" is only true if you
accept the myth that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant".
Best commute ever? The Oakland-San Francisco ferry. A nice, relaxed
cruise in a catamaran ferry with table seating, coffee and donuts in the morning, and a view of the sun going down behind downtown San Francisco
as the ferry took off under the bay bridge. Grab a beer from the bar, go to the upper deck, and on the odd Thursday night listen to "Ship of
Fools" a band made up of long-time ferry riders.
Adept wrote to Dr. What <=-
I guess? I mean, cars still pollute in a variety of other ways. Though, really, the better long-term solution is trains, since they're wildly
more efficient.
That said, while I'm unlikely to be directly injured from a higher
carbon dioxide level, there _is_ the fairly-well-documented history of
the planet where spiking carbon dioxide levels has lead to (or, at the least, is very strongly correlated with) apocalyptic species die offs something like 6 times in the history of the Earth.
But that's just carbon dioxide facts,
So I'm looking at getting an EV and have been learning a lot about them, batteries etc. Wondering if anyone here is driving one? Has any
experience with them?
Nightfox wrote to esc <=-
Also, I'd wonder that the existing gas station infrastructure could probably be more easily adapted to carry ammonia - They might just ne to fill one of their tanks with ammonia instead of gasoline or diesel and use the existing pumps to pump it.
The smart coffee shop will set up fast DC chargers outside their shops,
so people can come in and buy a coffee/pastry/hang out while their car charges. Imagine if you could charge your car at any Starbucks?
I am told the fast chargers are about USD $30k/each installed. Is that a viable investment to gain customers? The math could be enlightening.
The problem is that the passenger train infrastructure has long been dismantled with the exception of some long-range travel.
least, is very strongly correlated with) apocalyptic species die offs something like 6 times in the history of the Earth.They are somewhat correct. When that asteroid hit the planet, it set
But that's just carbon dioxide facts,No. That's CO2 propaganda.
lots in various commercial zones. Then, private companies wouldn't have
to worry about EV charging stations, similar to how private companies currently don't worry about which gas stations are nearby.
Adept wrote to Dr. What <=-
I mean, any solution that changes how people move around (including building more lanes for cars or anything involving EVs) requires a
large amount of investment.
But, yes, the solution for, "take more trains" is not a personal
choice, in the US, as it is in much of Europe.
But of the extinction events in Earth's history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events
...evidently there's reason to think that increases or decreases in atmospheric carbon levels played a role.
Anyway, clearly we have to stop. I tried to stick to straight facts
rather than including my opinions, but that was still called
propaganda.
lots in various commercial zones. Then, private companies wouldn't have
to worry about EV charging stations, similar to how private companies
currently don't worry about which gas stations are nearby.
Your description sounded an awful lot like the various rest stops with gas stations, bathrooms, food, and caffeinated beverages.
But it also requires a large number of people who need to go from Point
A to Point B (and probably back) in order to be profitable enough.
Most places in Europe are much smaller. I think most countries in the
EU are about the same size as just a state here in the U.S.
But there's still a question about cause and effect. Did the extinction event happen because of CO2 levels, or did CO2 levels rise because of
the extinction event?
When you post facts, I won't call them propaganda.
Yeah, my idea was based on the fact that gas stations are independently owned, so perhaps EV charging stations for parking lots should be independently owned.
Adept wrote to Dr. What <=-
I suppose, but _roads_ aren't profitable, so I'm not sure why trains
have to be.
That said, there are reasons why the more-useful lines being built are along the East Coast and from SF to LA.
But that's long-distance. I tend to think that shorter-distance trains
are generally more interesting, anyway. As I'm not going to commute on
a daily basis from LA to SF, but going from San Jose to SF (or vice
versa) is at least somewhat reasonable.
When you post facts, I won't call them propaganda.
*sigh*.
As usual, I regret engaging. My apologies to anyone I annoyed by
engaging.
Adept wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
And San Francisco is _much_ too crowded for cars to reliably be much
fun to have around. I lived in the vicinity for a bit, and, yeah, you _can_ have a car, but you'll invariably end up paying expensive parking tickets for one reason or another.
I'm sad that BART doesn't cover more areas. E.g., New York seems to
have multiple redundant lines, and the SF side of things does is a mish-mash of MUNI trains and buses. E.g., if you want to take BART into the City, but want to go to Fisherman's Wharf / Pier 39 for a tourist experience, you'll likely have to pop out at the last stop before the
bay, then get on a 1930s-era museum street car that's half experience
and half public transit. (and, no, I do not mean the famous trolleys. These are different pieces of old equipment, brought from Italy or elsewhere.)
Or else walk for 40 minutes, and have to walk back later.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Storm BBS (21:2/108)
k9zw wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I am told the fast chargers are about USD $30k/each installed. Is that
a viable investment to gain customers? The math could be enlightening.
k9zw wrote to Avon <=-
Pros
Goes like stink
Very quiet
Really nice car to drive
All the usually solid Volvo characterists
Cons
Limited range, that is really limited by overly cold or hot weather
Realistic charging needs require an expensive charger
Range anxity (in spades)
XC40 is smaller than we should have picked - the XC60 would be better
Good Chargers cost money (about USD $800/each) and electrician's help
(one ran $600 and other $180 to install)
are crazy expensive (50% of the cost of the car)
The included charger
is a joke, takes 20+ hours to recharge if you are lucky
--- Steve K9ZW via SPOT BBS
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/15 (Linux/64)
* Origin: SPOT BBS / k9zw (21:1/224)
Or else walk for 40 minutes, and have to walk back later.
I suppose, but _roads_ aren't profitable, so I'm not sure why trains have to be.
But that's long-distance. I tend to think that shorter-distance trains are generally more interesting, anyway. As I'm not going to commute on a daily basis from LA to SF, but going from San Jose to SF (or vice versa) is at least somewhat reasonable.
But there's still a question about cause and effect. Did the extinction event happen because of CO2 levels, or did CO2 levels rise because of
the extinction event?
I think there was some evidence that the change in CO2 levels came before the extinction events, but, yeah, if it's just two things at the same time, then, sure, harder to tell.
| Sysop: | Martin J Mitchell |
|---|---|
| Location: | Scotland |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 66:55:29 |
| Calls: | 127 |
| Files: | 29,254 |
| Messages: | 54,760 |