How will the power be generated to recharge millions of EV’s? :student:
I mean, it’s quite simple.
With more power generators and higher voltage/more power lines 
From all the power previously consumed by the electric motors in the gas pumps at the fuel stations?
All the energy stored in my Mitsubishi EV batteries is equivalent to the energy in 3 pints of gasoline, and i get 60 miles on a full “tank”, which takes ~$1.60 of electricity to fill. Perfect for a 40-mile round-trip commuter car.
Electric motors are just so much more efficient than gasoline for transportation—especially with the discovery of the Li cell chemistry. Before that it wasn’t economically feasible.
Take a guess: what do you think is used to provide the traction in locomotives?
By mining/digging and burnig more Coal.
Wind, solar, water… There are enough clean ways to harvest power.
Then why has Germany increased coal production & consumption and is dependent on imported natural gas to keep the country’s lights on?
Today we don’t have a lot of storage so energy is curtailed (thrown away) when there is excess.
Night time in many places are notorious for this.
In Australia they heat hot water at night becasue they can’t turn down inflexible coal power. The extra loss of hot water when no one needs it is better then not using any of the excess coal generated electricity. They also run hydro power backwards as a storage mechanism but most countries don’t have enough hydro power to absorb all the extra unused juice.
Nuclear is also famous for wasted, unused electricity as its also hard to turn down.
A recent study found about 25% more than current use (not including curtailment) will be needed to power all vehicles as EVs. We don’t have accurate numbers as to how much not throwing away unused power will lower that number.
Also solar and wind are much cheaper than coal and natural gas, and vastly cheaper than nuclear.
Take a guess at how much of your power in Alabama comes from solar. Say thank you natural gas, nuclear, and coal in that order.U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis I’ll give you a hint on the solar. 2%. And that in a state that gets a lot of sun. If you think solar is going to tow the line in the northern half of the US and or Southern Canada I’m guessing you’ve never seen snow.
So if it has not been done yet it cannot be done.
Well then we should stop all progress becasue thats the definition of progress.
What I’m saying is that electricity costs are going to go up dramatically. I’d be in favor of a law that says you can only plug your vehicle in between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on days when the sun is shining. Or the electricity will cost you four times as much if you plug it in at other hours.The BIGGEST problem with clean energy - YouTube there’s plenty of other videos and information out there that goes into the drawbacks of renewables and how storage is going to be a key expensive factor. I see large solar fields the day of a snowstorm and the day after a snowstorm and they’re still 90% covered by snow. And sometimes even two days after a snowstorm they’re still 80% covered by snow. Can we assume all those electric cars are staying home?
I don’t think that is what Oli was suggesting.
Rather that renewables such as solar and wind can’t deliver the electricity needed to power the millions of EVs that are now on the roads let alone the millions more to come in the next few years.
Solar and wind will not be able to provide the power needed.
Plus we have learned that they are not truly the cheap clean energy sources we were told they were.
Wind power has major issues with hardware lifespans, servicing and more so the inability to recycle old parts, eg: blades, which end up in landfill.
Not to mention the fact that wind isn’t always available to turn them.
Similarly with solar, as well as the need for batteries to make both more efficient which means mining ever depleting minerals from the earth.
And obviously those batteries should be reserved for flashlights!
100% renewables has been modelled.
But change is scary.
Don’t believe the hype, I’ve been watching this for 40 years. Those sort of papers are all backed by big gov renewables funds, money taken/taxed usually from the poorest in society to shift wealth & fund projects and papers to make governments look like they are being green and caring to the world, it’s all bs.
Nuclear fusion seems like it might be an answer.
Thats quite the house of cards, the government wants to take form the poor to give to the rich for RE as hype but voters choosing politicians who campaign on trickle down economics (for more fossil fuels) is what is actually happening.
The nice thing about fusion is that it doesn’t exist as an energy positive reactor hence is no danger to the status quo.
Fortunately i live in the TVA region with numerous hydro dams and nuke plants along the Tennessee river.
Nukes have been used on all US submarines since the ’50s with no accidents. How could they do this? by not taking the cheap route of the commercial units, i.e. use separate primary and secondary coolant loops instead of trying to use just one loop for everything. With separate loops the big-assed compressor doesn’t get contaminated and require massive costs to remove, cut in pieces, and store. Dual loops requires big heat exchangers that add to their initial cost, but seems it would be worth the cost when it works without all the issues of the single loop systems such as 3-mile, Chernob and Fuka. It seems so simple and obvious that it’s hard to believe anyone would want to build a single loop system. Forget the bandaids, just do it right the first time.
Because it takes time to build those and they cost more than burning coal and gas.
Because Germany has backed out of nuclear power at warp speed. That was (IMHO) an election orientated forward retreat. As usual there was no overall strategy involved.
I’m not pointing fingers at Germany in particular. NL is doing it’s best to follow this kind of lemming behaviour, lowering speed limits and leaning heavily on energy companies to shut down all coal plants. Just to meet self imposed environmental goals. But that is “kurieren am Symptom” (pardon my French). We’re just fighting the symptoms and not dealing with the cause. In NL nobody wants to address the giant elephant in the room. The meat industry is by far the major source of methane in our air. While building projects have to prove the additional burden on the environment is zero or negative, our livestock is happily farting all the way to the slaughterhouse (eh…bank). While it is profitable to export the meat, the environmental collateral damage stays. Rant over.
Edit: EV were the subject. In NL it becomes more and more “not OK” to travel by plane. And a total implosion of the national railway system showed us last week that they are incapable to follow demand, even in “work at home” times. So you have to put all your eggs in the EV basket? Good luck to you (eh…us). With EV the journey is the goal. It takes a week to reach your destiny, and another week to get back home. Somewhere in between you may find a spare afternoon to get you feet wet in the mediterranean sea.
40 years ago you sat a home listening to ABBA on the radio.
Now you have a computer or phone to trashpost on BLF.
Change will come, don’t you worry about it 
LOL 
We did actually have computers & cell phones way back then, even the internet, just not as we know it now.
So some of us have already seen big changes and are very open to more change that will take us in the right direction.
I think the point & main issue is that the “change” some people talk about wont happen in time to power the millions of EVs on the roads now and millions more to come in the near future, falling back on fossil fuels.
But the music was better 40 years ago
As were the flashlights :laughing: