Re: [Vo]:OT Michael Shellenberger opposes California's gas car phase out
I wrote: You might not think so, looking at the primary energy of gasoline. The > thing is, electric cars use 4 to 5 times less energy than gasoline cars. So > imagine using 80% less gasoline. Look at these primary energy sources to > get a feel for it. Converting to electric cars would eliminate 28% of > primary energy consumption, while it shifts 7% from petroleum to natural > gas, wind and solar, and maybe a tad more coal for a few years: > > https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ > That's not quite right. The above graph shows petroleum at 35% of all primary energy. Most petroleum is used in the transportation sector, for cars, trucks and aircraft. This graph shows that 66% petroleum goes to transportation: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/petroleum_spaghetti_2020.pdf Jet fuel and aviation gasoline is only 6%. There may be a few short range electric aircraft in the future, but not many. Motor gasoline and distillate fuel go to transportation. If I am reading this graph correctly, cars and trucks account for 64% of petroleum. If they were all electric, this petroleum fuel would no longer be used. ~20% of it would be shifted to electricity for electric vehicles. 20% of 64% of 35% of total U.S. primary energy is approximately 4.5% of the 93 quads of primary energy we now use. That's 4.2 quads. Energy no longer used would be 80% of 64% of 35%, which is approximately 18% of the 93 quads. So, anyway we would need 4.2 quads more electricity. If all of that comes from natural gas or coal, that calls for about 13 quads of those fuels (generators have 33% Carnot efficiency, conservatively), but nowadays a lot of electricity comes from solar and wind. The transition to electric cars will take decades and we can easily build 4.2 quads of solar and wind by the time it happens, so actually this would probably not take any extra fuel at all. With smart meters, the power company can turn on and off electric car charging as wind conditions and demand vary. They do that already, at a discounted rate.
[Vo]:OT Michael Shellenberger opposes California's gas car phase out
MSF wrote: > I'm all for electric cars, except those aspects of them that are > controlled by entities other than the driver. > I believe you mean self-driving cars, or partially self-driving cars such as the Tesla. The self-driving feature has nothing to do with the car being electric. A Leaf is 100% human driven, with no self-driving features. For that matter, you could add self-driving features to a gasoline car, but I don't think anyone would do it. As has been demonstrated more than once, even gasoline powered cars of > recent manufacture are connected to the internet and can be disabled or > modified remotely. > I doubt this is a problem. It would be easy to prevent this from ever happening. It would be as easy as ensuring that the remote key cannot be duplicated. > We just don't have enough generating capacity or enough copper wire to > have a 100% electric fleet. > Oh yes we do. As long as the cars are charged overnight, they would not need any more generating capacity than we now have. In every country, electricity consumption is 20% to 30% lower at night. ( https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915) In parts of Texas, there is so much excess capacity from wind turbines, they make electricity free, to encourage shifting to night use. Furthermore, it would not take much electricity to power every car and truck in the U.S. The amount is surprisingly low. You might not think so, looking at the primary energy of gasoline. The thing is, electric cars use 4 to 5 times less energy than gasoline cars. So imagine using 80% less gasoline. Look at these primary energy sources to get a feel for it. Converting to electric cars would eliminate 28% of primary energy consumption, while it shifts 7% from petroleum to natural gas, wind and solar, and maybe a tad more coal for a few years: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ For example, the average current draw of the average American house is > about 1.3 kW. The overnight full charge draw of a Tesla Model 3 is 7kW. > The average draw of a house is not relevant. When you turn on a washing machine, dryer or an air conditioner you use far more than 1.3 kW. Any modern house has the capacity to supply 7 kW. I have a 6 kW electric car charger in my house which operates with no problem when the air conditioner and everything else is on. Furthermore, the Tesla does not need to be charged all night, every night. Given the average commute distance, it charges about an hour per night (32 miles of capacity). That could be one hour in the dead of night every night, or 7 hours on Sunday night. The chargers can be programmed to run from 2 am to 3 am. No other machinery in your house will be on at that time, except perhaps an air conditioner. If every house in the U.S. used 7 kW for an hour in the dead of night, it would not strain the capacity of the distribution network at all. It *would* use more natural gas to fuel the generators. In Atlanta, houses must have 100 A of capacity these days. I learned that when I recently had my wiring completely redone, after I discovered the house nearly burned down with 60-year-old wiring. There are several 240 V connections, for the air conditioner, furnace, clothes dryer, and now the car charger. So that comes to a lot more than 12 kW of capacity. The car charger is about the same as an electric water heater: https://insideevs.com/news/335300/ev-home-charging-typically-draws-less-than-half-the-power-of-an-electric-furnace/ Obviously, anyone with an electric water heater can run the air conditioner, dryer, fridge and other appliances at the same time as the water heats. > When you consider that here in California, there have been major blackouts > and brown-outs during hot recent hot weather, a sudden mandated change is > not even close to being practical. > Do not charge your car in hot weather. That's not recommended. Charge it overnight, when things are cool. This would be a gradual change, not sudden. It would not need any increase in capacity. If people did start charging during the day, the power company could lower the rates overnight. They can do that with modern power meters. That would shift car charging, clothes drying and other applications to overnight hours.
Re: [Vo]:OT Michael Shellenberger opposes California's gas car phase out
I'm all for electric cars, except those aspects of them that are controlled by entities other than the driver. As has been demonstrated more than once, even gasoline powered cars of recent manufacture are connected to the internet and can be disabled or modified remotely. I have disconnected all that stuff on my cars. We just don't have enough generating capacity or enough copper wire to have a 100% electric fleet. For example, the average current draw of the average American house is about 1.3 kW. The overnight full charge draw of a Tesla Model 3 is 7kW. When you consider that here in California, there have been major blackouts and brown-outs during hot recent hot weather, a sudden mandated change is not even close to being practical. No doubt these problems can be solved, but unrealistic mandates will be yet another economy destroyer. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, January 3rd, 2022 at 3:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Electric cars will not be a burden on the power grid if most of them are > charged overnight. They will cause the power grid to consume more natural > gas, but overall much less energy and CO2 emissions than gasoline would. They > would be a problem if they were charged during the day. With modern power > meters, electric power rates can be set to avoid this. > >>
Re: [Vo]:OT Michael Shellenberger opposes California's gas car phase out
We only need to phase out the use of *gasoline* and other fuels derived from oil. The ICE itself is not obsolete technology. harry On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Jed Rothwell wrote: > This guy makes some valid points, but there is a lot of misinformation and > mistakes about history in what he says. Two points in particular: > > Electric cars will not be a burden on the power grid if most of them are > charged overnight. They will cause the power grid to consume more natural > gas, but overall much less energy and CO2 emissions than gasoline would. > They would be a problem if they were charged during the day. With modern > power meters, electric power rates can be set to avoid this. > > Obsolete technology has often been banned. He says we did not ban horses > to bring in automobiles. That is incorrect. In the course of the 19th and > 20th centuries, horses were banned first to facilitate railroads, then > electric streetcars, and then automobiles. Horses were never supposed to be > allowed on railroad tracks. Railroad companies have been trying to stop > pedestrians, horses, cows and wildlife from using their right of way since > railroads began. Horse drawn urban streetcars were widely used in the 19th > century. Electric streetcars (trolley cars) were introduced starting in > 1881. For a short while, on some lines, a mix of horse drawn and electric > streetcars were used, but this was soon prohibited because it caused many > delays and accidents. Horses were banned from most urban public streets > soon after automobiles became widespread, after 1918. They were still > common in rural roads and small towns. They were never allowed on freeways > and highways designed for automobiles. They could not be used. Such roads > are banked, for speeds of 30 to 60 mph. A horse drawn vehicle would tip > over. > >
Re: [Vo]:OT Michael Shellenberger opposes California's gas car phase out
I think by bans he meant total bans, rather than local or incremental prohibitions. I don't know if over night charging solves the problem. harry On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Jed Rothwell wrote: > This guy makes some valid points, but there is a lot of misinformation and > mistakes about history in what he says. Two points in particular: > > Electric cars will not be a burden on the power grid if most of them are > charged overnight. They will cause the power grid to consume more natural > gas, but overall much less energy and CO2 emissions than gasoline would. > They would be a problem if they were charged during the day. With modern > power meters, electric power rates can be set to avoid this. > > Obsolete technology has often been banned. He says we did not ban horses > to bring in automobiles. That is incorrect. In the course of the 19th and > 20th centuries, horses were banned first to facilitate railroads, then > electric streetcars, and then automobiles. Horses were never supposed to be > allowed on railroad tracks. Railroad companies have been trying to stop > pedestrians, horses, cows and wildlife from using their right of way since > railroads began. Horse drawn urban streetcars were widely used in the 19th > century. Electric streetcars (trolley cars) were introduced starting in > 1881. For a short while, on some lines, a mix of horse drawn and electric > streetcars were used, but this was soon prohibited because it caused many > delays and accidents. Horses were banned from most urban public streets > soon after automobiles became widespread, after 1918. They were still > common in rural roads and small towns. They were never allowed on freeways > and highways designed for automobiles. They could not be used. Such roads > are banked, for speeds of 30 to 60 mph. A horse drawn vehicle would tip > over. > >
Re: [Vo]:OT Michael Shellenberger opposes California's gas car phase out
This guy makes some valid points, but there is a lot of misinformation and mistakes about history in what he says. Two points in particular: Electric cars will not be a burden on the power grid if most of them are charged overnight. They will cause the power grid to consume more natural gas, but overall much less energy and CO2 emissions than gasoline would. They would be a problem if they were charged during the day. With modern power meters, electric power rates can be set to avoid this. Obsolete technology has often been banned. He says we did not ban horses to bring in automobiles. That is incorrect. In the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, horses were banned first to facilitate railroads, then electric streetcars, and then automobiles. Horses were never supposed to be allowed on railroad tracks. Railroad companies have been trying to stop pedestrians, horses, cows and wildlife from using their right of way since railroads began. Horse drawn urban streetcars were widely used in the 19th century. Electric streetcars (trolley cars) were introduced starting in 1881. For a short while, on some lines, a mix of horse drawn and electric streetcars were used, but this was soon prohibited because it caused many delays and accidents. Horses were banned from most urban public streets soon after automobiles became widespread, after 1918. They were still common in rural roads and small towns. They were never allowed on freeways and highways designed for automobiles. They could not be used. Such roads are banked, for speeds of 30 to 60 mph. A horse drawn vehicle would tip over.
[Vo]:OT Michael Shellenberger opposes California's gas car phase out
from sept 2020 Michael Shellenberger opposes California's gas car phase out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHZ4atMERWE Harry
