I would love to switch to electric but at current charging times and absolutely horrendously incompetent grid deployments, there’s no way all of the thousand people in my building could, much less the million other renters in the city. (And certainly transit can’t cope with us either, given the continued homeowner hostility to paying taxes for such things.)
What city has charging available for an average of greater than one spot per five hundred multifamily-housing residents? What parking garages anywhere in the U.S. have 25 or more electric vehicle chargers per 100 daytime and/or overnight and/or reserved parking spots, in order to diffuse the grid cost through trickle charging? What funding model is proposed to ensure that’s built whether corporate garage owners like it or not? How will states who depend on fuel tax to keep roads in repair avoid cutting off city services to suburban outregions when their asphalt budgets crater?
Technology has downstream effects, and it’s not as simple as “buy a Prius” when you consider U.S. non-homeowners. (I assume the prospect for India electric conversions would be much worse, too.) “Ban combustion vehicles” is a lofty goal, but until the charging grid problem is solved, it’s an unattainable one.
We use perhaps 5% battery of our VW ID.3 on a typical day (school run, shops, visiting friends or whatever) so we just do an over-night top-up back to 80% maybe once a week when we get down to ~50%. Working surprisingly well - I am not sure I can be bothered to get the proper charger installed (which is annoying as I have already bought it and the cable for about £800 and its just sitting in my shed!)
Of course if you're commuting 2 hours every day, things will be different. But for us, it's been great.
Assuming a 120V / 20A = 2400W circuit (more or less standard in a garage):
100 parking spots = 200A / 24000W; 300 parking spots = 600A / 72000W.
So a distribution line can carry 72kW readily enough — that seems to be about where they are anyways — but if it's carrying that load, it cannot carry any other load, which means that each high-capacity parking garage will need a dedicated line from the nearest substation is.
Then, that parking garage will need to distribute that current to 300 parking spot chargers. Even at 120V/20A, that's 300 new circuit taps; 300 wires, initially. You can use three-phase to reduce that to 100 wires @ 120/20A or equivalent each, which is a lot. Or you can reduce that to 3 wires @ 120V/200A or equivalent, at which point you now have the safety considerations of an outdoor distribution wire in a small enclosed fire-prone space, and you're facing the christmas light problem of "one blown bulb" versus one third of your garage.
Then you need to confront "the chargers need to support burst-mode" so that people can push a button to get a temporary fast-charge ignoring all other concerns — but also "the chargers need to default to trickle-mode", while also considering that trickle-mode should run faster when fewer cars are plugged in (or else tenants will take offense that the chargers aren't using provisioned and available capacity), and that Time-of-Day concerns should cap trickle-mode during peak so that the grid doesn't fail. And that electric vehicles are foreseen as a component of localized grid storage, so garages might need to support backfeeding from cars.
And this all has to be coordinated across three hundred chargers and who knows how many feeder circuits, between one three-phase and three-hundred one-phase, assuming that 72kW (120V/600A) is provisioned to trickle-charge the entire garage each evening at 15A per car max (have to leave some headroom for the burst needs, for momentary overdraw before a charger fuses out a defective vehicle, etc).
This is all doable, but it is logistically expensive, and I would estimate that cost at perhaps tens of millions of dollars at that scale. Doing this for my old 12-apartment complex would merely require 2.4kW of new power delivery, taps, and distribution under the pavement (there's no room for overhead poles to be introduced), without sinking the property into the riverbed it's built on, and without breaking the local emergency services grid that it's drawing from when the creek next door floods every few years.
Retrofit costs are estimated at $5000-$15000 per single parking spot (new buildings are wired more efficiently so halve that cost for anything built since the Model S came out). California at one point was offering a 30% subsidy on retrofits; so, for my example, 300 spots * $5000-$15000 = ~2-4 million dollars (napkin rounded) for a single apartment complex. At local 1-bedroom housing prices, that's around 1000 rent-months of capital investment with no future gain — and that's the most critical part here. The complex cannot recoup that investment through maintenance and usage fees, because those will have to be paid out in actual maintenance and kilowatt-hours — and tenants, in this economy, cannot afford to subsidize the buildout cost.
So until retrofits are either state-funded or state-mandated, landlords have little to no reason to invest their money into the future of electric cars, because they'll get pennies on the dollar at best from their investment. And, given their tendency to collude via RealPage, no one will be the first to build out a 100% EV charging garage because that will not only long-term devalue their other properties without increasing the short-term value of the one improved, but also will start a race to the bottom that they are already colluding to try and prevent.
Yes, trickle-charging is electrically feasible — it's compelling the profitless capital investment that is not.
Landlords can charge tenants over the price of electricity.
> What city has charging available for an average of greater than one spot per five hundred multifamily-housing residents?
Shanghai: https://english.shanghai.gov.cn/en-Latest-WhatsNew/20240508/...
Napkin math time. Assuming that Shanghai has ~1% of China's 420 million vehicles, given that Shanghai has ~2% of China's population (~8 million) and assuming a car ownership rate of 0.5; then Shanghai can be estimated to have 4 million vehicles, while only having 0.8 million charging locations (as the article indicates). 20% certainly does exceed 0.2%, and they're ahead of the game with ~2 charging locations per EV today — but that also means that they've only converted ~10% of Shanghai's gasoline vehicle population and are only provisioned to support 20% conversion right now.
However, I think that China has a significant advantage versus the U.S. — they are primarily selling very small vehicles for intra-city use. So, their charger capacities can be significantly lower per vehicle than in the U.S., which reduces their difficulty of electric conversations probably by a full order of magnitude from ours.
This does not match what I’ve seen in China at all. Nor does it match up with any data I’ve seen about the best selling cars in China. Do you have any data on this?
This doesn't really matter that much. The average car commute in the US is less than 40 miles per day. Even if we assume that everyone gets a fairly giant Model X, that's still around 12kWh of energy per day.
You can get that much power from a regular 120V wall plug within 8 hours.
There are smaller and more practical changes that would have huge benefits. More public transport, pedestrianised areas, encouraging people to drive smaller cars (lots of ways to do that - e.g. reserve some parking for small cars, tax vehicles on weight) would all have huge benefits.
Other countries have figured this out. Norway in particular. Working transportation models exist and this country has the funds to make it happen. However because of American Exceptionalism, we have very limited options.
Yet every single morning and evening there is huge traffic jam around every city. Every single year highways are more full, more issue with parking.
If it can't be solved in such ideal country for public transport, I am not holding breath for rest of the world, and just wishing something ain't gonna make it real. There are many reasons why situation is as it is (it costs a lot, even such transport doesn't cover many people's cases well enough and nobody wants to spend 120 mins every day commuting via public transport when its say 60 with cars).
What I can imagine actually working - uber style shared robo (meaning cheap) taxis/minibuses. Big enough network that one can even switch a car in some 'taxi station' for more efficient trip that would take just marginally longer than driving oneself. This solves a lot of parking issues in cities and would reduce traffic to maybe half or a bit less.
Banning gasoline vehicles is the goal. In the U.S., all known solutions require capital investments that corporations can't extract a 'growth in profit growth over time' from, while disadvantaging the vehicle owners caste. Solve that, and you'll solve a lot more than just gasoline vehicles.
We have scaled it! We're a country of 330 million people where almost everyone drives.
> However because of American Exceptionalism, we have very limited options.
It's only "American Exceptionalism" insofar as Americans are rich compared to Europeans. Upper middle class people across Europe also live in suburbs and drive to places. American wealth/land space simply enables middle and lower middle class people to do the same thing.
said the man, 37 trillion dollars in debt. Go team!
Annoyingly, I've already invested in a 11kW charger (with 22kW infrastructure) which I've never used!
You don't need "magical DC-charging" to go EV.
[1] My wife, being from the west coast, used to walk around NYC in flip flops, and would come home with her feet black from brake dust and soot and god knows what else.
Typical car density for my nearest three grocery stores is 25-100 vehicles fluctuating during three or four peak hours. The highest number of chargers at any of those stores is 8, followed by 2 and 0; of those, 8 have been out of service for the past 60 days because someone is playing negotiation hardball with the charging services provider.
When the chargers were working, they were nearly at capacity for the entire day, at current (low) levels of electric car fraction of the population; there's no way they're prepared to cope with a full conversion, at which point the same power density and distribution problem that impacts multifamily parking garages instead (or as well!) affects grocery stores.
Plus, most people can charge at home with an extension cord. It's not particularly fast, but you should be able to get 4-5 miles an hour. In the worst case scenario where you can only charge at home and can only charge for 10 hours overnight, that's still 40 miles of driving which is enough for a lot of commuters. Even if it falls short—again—you can use public chargers.
Lastly, eliminating the sale of ICE cars will be a pretty rapid forcing function on the deployment of EV chargers. Still, I'd be all for locations that ban combustion engines mandating that landlords provide EV charging facilities.
In the UK at least, there are more EV chargers than gas/petrol stations: https://www.vertumotors.com/news/there-are-more-charging-poi...
In case it sounds like I'm gas station lobby: I'm not against EVs at all and don't own a car, I'm just wondering if this is a fair comparison
FWIW a fast charge is like 10-15 mins usually while you grab a coffee or something - in modern EV cars you have 100-200kw (or more!) charging where you can get like 400 or 500 miles in an hour, so 15mins gives you 100-125 miles extra range etc. If you time it, filling up a gas tank and going in to pay and all that is not like 40 seconds but more in the 5-10 mins mark, so 15 mins top up on a longer journey is not that much longer than filling up.
It's a bit of a different mentality really - with petrol/gas I'd fill up to the brim then drive until I was almost empty, but with an EV I wake up with a full tank and just do a quick top off here and there during the day (assuming I ever need it which 99% of the time I don't) until I can get home and charge overnight where is way way cheaper.
With petrol I'd never stop to just put in a few litres at a time, but doing it with an EV is so simple and easy, and you can go do something else while it's happening. Picking up some groceries, getting a coffee, bio break etc - perfect time for a top up
EV is not for everyone, but those Rivian are nice though. =3
EV are meant for people that live in 4'C to 42'C weather, and have excess capacity on their solar installations. Everyone else is getting subsidized by their neighbors paying for excess electrical capacity. =3
So far its like 1 or 2 a street (and not all streets either), but hopefully one day it will basically be all of them in every street so you don't need to worry.
So if you need to park overnight on the street anyway, park next to a lamp post that has the socket. Its "slow" charging at 4 to 5 KW, but if you're parked for 8-12 hours (while you are asleep), that is quite a considerable top-up in the 40-50KWh range.
Either of those two common types of companies you can possibly "win" an easy way to charge your daily commute.
Only laws (accommodate EVs and/or WFH) or spending time sitting at a gas station will help me here. No landlord is interested in accommodating an EV unless it's a net benefit to them (and thus a net negative to me, who already spends 40% income just to have a place to work.)
Having a car right out one's door is a real luxury though, no more than two steps through any weather. I can see the appeal, just not sure if the collective downsides are worth it compared to arranging good transport inside of, and between, cities. Outside of populated areas, yeah, whatcha gonna do, but at least inside of major settlements we ought to be able to get this done (in many cities it's already okay to not have a car, but imo the facilities to get to the countryside are relatively annoying and needlessly expensive)
They can't make it into their garages on the narrow road, and there are no curb side plugs in the front (NEC safety rules.) Funny until the Garbage truck rage mashes the horn at 6am... lol =3
Now quadruple this.
"super extra 1gigawatt charging" isn't coming to my area, potentially ever. Afaik there's two "super chargers" in my metro area, both at dealerships. i've actually never seen a Tesla charger in person.
for instance, my nearest gas station is 2 miles away. The nearest place to actually buy fresh food is a 36 mile round trip.
furthermore calling the gigawatt charging stations "electric plugs" is real disingenuous.
But you have to do that probably weekly. And then also spend a lot of money while doing it. It seems you believe those driving EVs are "suckers", but do you realize you probably spend hours and hours more in a year going to the station and pump compared to most EV owners never having to do that in their daily life?
Zero to a hundred, you know that isn’t even remotely true.
Your display says that. And your display is bullshit.
I work with the people that make the displays man. There are entire groups dedicated to deciding what is indefensible lies, and what “could be true under the right circumstances so we’re allowed to say/show that”
> Why are you talking about charging from 0 to 100 % when that's NOT how you charge an EV,
lol, go to a charging station sometime and see the people sleeping or watching tv. If it’s your primary vehicle and you want to go somewhere, you are going from 0 to 100.
For most the consumption of an EV is shown rather accurately and is really just (energy drawn from the HV battery as measured by the BMS, which is generally very accurate for safety reasons) divided by (kilometers driven in the current interval).
As far as I know nobody includes charging losses in the readout. Personally I think this is correct for range estimation purposes. If you're swinging at a cost perspective, this of course means you're going to always miss around 3-20% depending on charging method, temperatures, car model etc. (there are fairly significant differences in OBC efficiency across models and also across AC power, low power charging gets inefficient quickly, while 7-11 kW often gets you north of 90%. DCFC is usually more efficient accounting-wise, because fast chargers bill for DC energy, not AC energy, so DC conversion losses aren't on the bill in the first place, though I assume DC chargers are also more efficient at power conversion than OBCs in general).
I don't know what to tell you. I drive a MG4 with a 64 kWh battery. My average consumption is usually between 14-15 kWh/100 km (I don't drive very fast on freeways), which means that a full battery gets me a bit over 400 km, which is the actual range I can get fro the car. It charges at 135 kW for a large part of the battery capacity and 20 minutes of charging gives me more than 50 % of the capacity, hence more than 200 km.
> lol, go to a charging station sometime and see the people sleeping or watching tv
I live in Prague, Czech Republic, in Europe. I don't see people sleeping or watching TV at charging stations, because there's a ton of them and they're in convenient places. I have never waited for an empty spot, not a single minute. I park my car on the street, I'm entirely reliant on public infrastructure and it works well.
> If it’s your primary vehicle and you want to go somewhere, you are going from 0 to 100.
My EV is my only vehicle and I only charge it to 100 % when I need the battery to balance (which my car only does at 100 %), i.e once every month or so. Again, with a working charging network and a reasonably modern EV, you can just start driving and charge when necessary (for 15 minutes or so).
The tracking, the module security lockdown, and that in a couple years particulate filter systems like DEF for diesel that everyone just loves… is coming to petrol by regulation.
I'm sure there are some homeowners who can't - maybe listed buildings, or these weird HOA rules I hear about from Americans.
Make EVs chargeable for those who choose to live in the urban jungle and then talk about their merits.
By solving the renters-think-they-need-to-own-a-car problem.
It’s still been a problem in several places though, because it forced poor people with old cars to either upgrade or stop driving. An equitable alternative would have included a way to get a new car free or at least cheap.
Credits are indeed a scam but they are not a mandatory component of a carbon externality tax.
You know how Tesla makes a fuckton of money? Selling their carbon credits to industry so they can pollute. So all the pollution reduction caused by people driving Teslas enables industry to pollute instead of controlling their emissions, reducing energy waste, decarbonizing, etc.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23939076/norway-electric-...
We don't actually want to scrap working cars unless they have reached the end of their life or passed an air quality threshold (UK tests every car over 3 years old, every year, called an MOT). Reduce, reuse, recycle etc.
B100 is almost carbon neutral, and has the energy density necessary for commercial logistics. Finding responsible manufacturing methods is far more feasible.
EV only make sense with distributed generation like home solar. =3
It is cleaner from a sulfur content and long-term carbon cycle perspective, but is very similar to regular fuels.
The dilemma is whether B100 it more difficult to scale than trying to retool our entire global energy infrastructure with finite rare earth metals. =3
Make streets narrower. Reduce parking. Return road infrastructure in favor of walkability, green areas, and reducing urban heat islands.
Modern gasoline and hybrid cars are fine, banning them at this point in time would mean a drop in quality of life for negligible gain.
Hybrid cars might be good enough, but banning pure combustion cars from cities sounds perfectly reasonable to me. No real quality of life impact.
And how will all the people that are buying 500€ second hand cars afford electric?
Don't get me wrong, I think there is merit in a ICE free future, especially in urban areas, but the practicalities.. And I am not convinced the long term impacts of EV are fully appreciated necessarily.
Well, I like that the people that think like this also probably live I places where you are actually driving a coal powered car.
Like the clowns in Hawaii that have extra subsidies for EVs… their power comes directly from burning crude oil.
I’m an automotive EE, and and the truth about EVs is in a rush to push them out the door, the media and politicians have set the tech back at least a decade by pretending it is something it’s not.
EVs for most people outside of California. Make a great town vehicle or second vehicle.
A ban on ICE… wow.
First, EV engines are far, far more energy efficient than ICEs. Secondly, fossil fuel power plants are far more efficient at converting fossil fuels to energy than ICEs are (since the energy efficiency of a thermal engine is proportional to its volume).
The result is that the EV car mileage you'll get by burning 1t of oil in an oil power plant is much, much higher than the mileage you'll get from that same 1t of oil in ICE cars. I'm not 100% sure if this holds true for coal based power plants, but those should be getting relatively rarer.
Not to mention, fossil fuel power plants can have much better filters and some CO2/CH4 capture technologies, so the mileage you get per ton of greenhouse gas emissions is even better than the energy per ton of fossil fuels.
Changes on this scale take time. But to make the islands much less dependent on fossil fuels, a two-pronged strategy is in play. Reduce fossil fuel generation, but also reduce the dependence on fossil fuel in transport.
As a long-term strategy, reducing the cost of importing all that fuel, over vast distances, seems to be a huge win for the islands. In every way (politically, economically, socially, environmentally) generating their own energy is a win.
Literally the most unrefined and dirty way to create power, as long as the tourists don’t see it, and the EV owners that think they’re making a different don’t know, g2g.
Seems a pretty simple choice from my point of view.
That's still an improvement for both global and local emissions.
If all their electricity comes from burning crude oil than they'd get about the same amount of miles in an ICE by refining that oil to gasoline for the cars and an EV by burning the crude oil for electricity, distributing that over the grid to drivers to charge their EVs.
However, about 22% of Hawaii's electricity comes from solar, so the EVs will come out ahead.
Even if we ignore solar and assume the EVs only use electricity from burning crude oil, the crude oil fueled generators should be cleaner than ICE engines, so there would be a significant reduction in total green house gases and particulates.
Exactly, as long as no one sees it, it isn’t happening. Same with them burning plastic and trash.
Because of math.
A 6 kW house, to charge a 60 kW battery… so long as everyone with an electric vehicle is charging them at their house for 10 sunny hours to charge from empty, you’re right and I’m wrong.
Some people could get by, but it leaves the solar for nothing else. If you leave the house while the sun is up you better get back because you’re losing daylight!
The average is 8900 miles per year which is a little under 24 miles per day and a little under 750 miles a month.
If you can charge with solar at 6 kW on a typical EV that will give you about 20 miles per hour of charging. If you can do a little over an hour a day you will be covered.
If you find plugging in for an hour a day to much of a hassle it is under 9 hours a week or 37 hours a month.
Good to know how wrong I am on this topic. Let me guess, you own an EV? Well, that certain explains it everything.
You made some basic mistakes in your previous reply, such as confusing power (kW) and energy (kWh) and assuming that a typical driver in HI commutes something like 250mi each day. This isn't even typical for drivers on the mainland, where plenty of EV+solar owners manage to replenish most or all of their EV usage using rooftop solar generation just fine.
(If you're going to answer "well, I never said I was considering the median distance/day case - I was talking about the most extreme scenarios!" then I'd suggest at least bumping up the hypothetical solar installation to 10kW instead of going with the median.)
We can either do drastic things now, or desperate things later.
Pollution and environmental destruction are big problems, but there are no remotely likely scenarios where the Earth "is wrecked by pollution" and a HN reader would need to question the viability of remaining on the planet.
The all people here shitting on reality - are doing so because they’re defending their purchases.
Most people with EV as a primary vehicle were fooled into marketing that does not accurately reflect the product, and they don’t want to hear otherwise.