Guest essay by John Hardy
Full disclosure: I own an electric car, and I think they are useful for city transportation. However, having owned one for a decade, I can say that it hasn’t been practical or cost-effective. John Hardy believes they are the future, I’ll let you, the reader, decide. – Anthony Watts
Part 1 of this series expressed the view that regardless of “the environment”, EVs are poised to inflict a massive disruption on the automotive industry, and outlined the strengths of the technology and some of the reasons that it is happening now.
Part 2 discussed the main issues for Western automakers in handling this disruption
Part 3 below is devoted to common misconceptions which cause some to mistakenly conclude that EVs will not be practicable in the foreseeable future.
The demise of the Western auto industry: Part 3 – common misconceptions
Misconception 1: batteries will never get us to acceptable range.
The combination of a 300 mile range and fast charge should be plenty. How many people routinely drive more than 300 miles without stopping for toilet and/or food? For most people, most of the time averaging 20 – 30 miles per day [1], charging could be done once a week. “Fast charge” needs to be fast however: 20 minutes from empty to 80% charge. The batteries are well able to handle this. The infrastructure uses well-understood technology (300+ Kw charging stations already exist in Beijing for buses [2]). Several current production EVs have a range of over 200 miles and some over 300.
Misconception 2: if EVs take off, electrical distribution networks won’t cope.
With an average daily mileage for private cars of 20-30 miles per day and 3-4 miles per kW-hr the average charge needed is 5 to 10 kW-hr a day, equivalent to running a 7 kW electric shower for 40 to 80 minutes or warming up a few storage heaters over 5-6 hours.
Another mistaken assumption is that everyone will come home and charge at peak time in the early evening. Once again this is highly unlikely to become a problem. Incentivising people to charge off peak is trivial, as is the technology. I have my car set to start charging at 1:00 a.m. when my electricity price almost halves.
Misconception 3: EV charging will require rewiring all the houses in the land.
UK standard sockets handle almost 3 kW. Recharging an average day’s driving just from a wall socket might take 2 – 4 hours. Electric showers may run over 10kW, so adding a 10kW EV wall box is no more complex than installing an electric shower and would recharge an exhausted battery in a 300 mile range car in 7-10 hours.
Misconception 4: Generating capacity will be insufficient
It is sometimes said that if EVs take off, a huge increase in generating capacity will be needed. In the UK there were some scary (and ill-informed) press comments on a document published recently by the National Grid entitled Future Energy Scenarios (FES). The National Grid looked at four different scenarios. One of them concluded that additional demand resulting from an all-EV world would be about 5 Gw. On the face of it, this doesn’t seem to compute: to recharge an EV like the Chevy Bolt or the Tesla Model 3 takes about 75 kW-hrs. 5 Gw over 24 hours is 120 Gw hrs or 120 million Kw-hrs, so 5 Gw extra sounds like it would cope with maybe 1 – 2 million EVs rather than the 30 million or so that would be on UK roads today if all our piston-engined cars became EVs overnight.
There are two factors at work here. Firstly as discussed earlier, EVs used as private cars need an average 5-10 Kw-hr per vehicle per day, so 120 Gw-hr would in theory support a population of 12 million vehicles.
There is another critical issue though: exploiting the variability of demand. Let us do some mental experiments:
Figure 1 is a graph of UK power requirements on a typical working day in winter. (The pattern and the numerical values will be different in Australia or the USA, but the principle is the same). The area under the line (the blue area in Figure 1) is the total electrical energy required during the 24 hours – 965 Gw-hrs in this example. Note that the power requirement varies greatly from a low around 30000 Mw (30 Gw) in the early hours of the morning to almost 50 Gw at 6:00 in the evening.
If the system was capable of sustaining 50 Gw for 24 hours, an additional 230 Gw-hrs could be generated (Figure 2):
230 Gw-hrs is 230,000,000 kw-hrs. Recall that to recharge an EV that has covered the UK average daily private car mileage, 5 – 10 Kw-hours are needed. So if we could put all the available 230 Gw-hrs into EV batteries we could, crudely and theoretically, service a population of between 32 million and 46 million EVs without any additional capacity. At the end of March 2017 there were around ~37 million vehicles licensed in Great Britain, of which ~31 million were cars [3]
Of course this analysis is simplified. It ignores a myriad of variables such as pumped storage, power imported from other countries, battery powered trucks, capacity currently used to refine and distribute petrol and so on, but as an order-of magnitude approximation it is useful.
Is it possible to manage demand like this? Certainly it is. All that is required is to give the control of “normal” charge rate to centralised automated processes (with appropriate over rides, agreed contractual arrangements and financial incentives). The technology to achieve this is straightforward.
But there is an even simpler way: between midnight and 7:00 a.m. the cumulative “energy available” is about 133 Gw-hrs: sufficient (theoretically) to do an average day’s charge on between 18 million and 26 million EVs. My electricity almost halves in price during those hours and my EV is capable of starting to charge at any time I wish; so I do most of my charging in those hours (Figure 3).
There is another consideration here. One of the juggling acts that the controllers of any grid system must manage is spikes and troughs in demand. Electricity must in general be consumed as it is generated: so a sudden change in demand may require the start-up of additional generating capacity, the use of pumped storage, reducing supply to a flexible consumer, additional imports etc. If they do it right, voltage and frequency stay steady and nobody notices. If they get it slightly wrong we have temporary brownouts. If they make a complete mess of things, or are hit by too many variables at once the system can collapse as happened recently in South Australia.
Figure 4 is an example of just such a peak. It is half time in a televised football (soccer) match. Within a minute or so the demand goes up by around 1 Gw. This is about the total output of the Sizewell B nuclear power plant, or a quarter of the capacity of the Drax power station – largest in the UK.
Wind energy complicates this juggling act because the output of a wind turbine is intrinsically variable and can change extremely rapidly. A sudden storm hitting a wind farm such as the London Array (630 Mw) could take ½ Gw off line in seconds. With the right technology and the right contractual arrangements between householders and the energy companies, 30 million EVs provide a powerful and flexible tool for the unseen (and under-valued) grid jugglers.
Time for another thought experiment.
Suppose our 30 million EVs had a battery capacity of 75 kW-hrs (similar to today’s Chevy Bolt and entry level Tesla Model 3). Suppose the contractual deal was that the grid managers could help themselves to (say) 10% of that capacity any time the vehicle was plugged in, provided that it was fully charged by a specified time. That would theoretically provide a 200+ Gw-hr buffer which could be dialled up and down almost instantly. In practice of course it would be less (not all the EVs would be plugged in and some would be less than 90% charged), but even (say) 50 Gw-hrs would be handy: it far exceeds the UK’s current pumped storage capacity for example.
[As an aside, whilst this sort of buffer would be very helpful in managing short-term peaks and troughs, the idea of 100% wind/solar with battery back-up for days or weeks is infeasible with current technology in the foreseeable future. Vey roughly UK demand in winter is around 1000 Gw-hr/day. If the sun didn’t shine and the wind didn’t blow for ten days, the UK alone would need ~10,000 Gw-hr of battery storage. That is 4-5 times the total battery capacity of a fleet of 30 million electric cars, and more than 300 times the total world output of lithium ion batteries in 2014]
Misconception #5: EVs will be constrained by a shortage of lithium
There is not enough lead around to power a large fleet of EVs, but there is almost certainly enough lithium.
Two factors in particular help
- Lithium is not like oil. Oil is dug up, refined, distributed and burned. The supply requirements are ongoing. By contrast, lithium is extracted, made into batteries and, er that’s it for ten years or so. It is then (at least partially) recycled. Once lithium is in the system it will (mostly) stay there.
- Lithium is not like lead. Very roughly, 60% of the weight of a lead acid battery is lead [4] and the energy density of a lead acid battery is about 30 watt-hours per kg; so a 75 Kw-hr lead acid battery (Chevy Bolt size) would weigh about 2,500 kg, of which 1,500 kg would be lead (that explains why lead acid EVs are experiments, not serious transport). Estimates of the amount of lithium used in a lithium ion battery vary greatly from about 80 grams per Kw-hr to 250 grams per Kw-hr [5]. These figures translate to a lithium content of between 6 and 19 kg of lithium for our hypothetical 75 Kw-hr battery. Either way there is about two orders of magnitude difference between the weight of lead and the weight of lithium used to produce a battery of the same capacity.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) suggests that “reserves” of lithium globally are about 14 million tons (this is measured as mass of an equivalent amount of pure lithium), but suggests a “Resources” figure of about 40 million tons [6]. At 13kg per car, 1 million tons of lithium would be sufficient for 76 million cars. One estimate is that global car production in 2016 was ~72 million [7]. If we assume the “worst case” of:
- No lithium recycling (there are plants already up and running, but let’s be devil’s advocate and assume this)
- Only 25% of reserves available for cars (the rest going into ceramics, commercial vehicles, grid storage etc)
- No substitution of lithium by other metals in batteries
- Only the USGS “reserve” of 14 million turned out to be available (i.e. the 40 million “resources” never materialise)
- No substantial increase in efficiency of usage (i.e. Kw-hrs per kg of lithium remains unchanged)
If we make all these assumptions we can make the case that there is only enough lithium to support 3 or 4 years of car production in a world where all cars are electric. This is however a false picture for several reasons:
· The price of a finished battery is very insensitive to the price of the lithium raw material. This means that the price for lithium can increase greatly without having a noticeable effect on battery prices. This gives lots of financial headroom for exploiting reserves that are not economic at current prices. If the price goes high enough, it would in theory be possible to extract it from seawater. One estimate put the amount of lithium in the world’s oceans at 230 billion tons [8]
- Over the years, reserves of oil have gone up very greatly (see for example [9]). It is not unreasonable to expect lithium reserves to increase in a similar way
- As hinted earlier, lithium is in fact reclaimed from old batteries. Again, if shortages develop there is financial headroom to increase the efficiency of this process
- Lithium is used in the battery cathode because it is the “best” element electrically. If shortages developed alternatives could be used (see for example [10])
Misconception #6 – No I’ll stop here
There are dozens of arguments fielded against EVs; I have yet to encounter one which stood up under examination. It is going to happen regardless of “the environment”; and if the Western manufacturers can’t or won’t adapt, the economic outlook for the rising generation does not look good.
References
[1] Average daily private car mileage in the UK is about 21 [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/632857/nts0901.ods. 7,800 miles per year for privately owned cars = 21 m.p.d. [Company cars 18,900 = 51 m.p.d. but they are a small percentage]. In the US it is about 30 [https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10309, 11,244 miles per year for cars = 30 miles per day]
[2] “…The new station at the Xiaoying bus terminal in the Chaoyang district is home to 25 electric vehicle (EV) chargers operating at 360kW and five chargers operating at 90kW. Reportedly all 30 chargers can operate at once….” From https://cbwmagazine.com/bus-charging-beijing/
[3] See table veh0102 accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/all-vehicles-veh01
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93acid_battery
[5] http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1826 Note that this article is old and a bit dated
[6] https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lithium/mcs-2017-lithi.pdf. Note the heading “Data in metric tons of lithium content unless otherwise noted”. This is important as the material mined, and the materials used in battery production are not metallic lithium, but lithium compounds. Lithium carbonate for example is less than a fifth lithium by weight
[7] http://www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Terrestrial
[9] http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=oil&graph=reserves
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_battery#Overview
Yes – 12% increase in Electricity Generation Is all it would take to power ALL light duty vehicle miles in the US
No gasoline needed
Just a lot of coal. Not a bad thing either.
55,000 9MW nameplate offshore wind turbines would do just fine at only 10% capacity (433 Billion kilowatt-hours)
Considering offshore wind is 30-40% nameplate capacity consistently — you would only need 19,000 turbines
yes lots of coal is a bad thing — horribly inefficient – not much left worldwide — better as a feedstock for nano-carbon materials
I don’t really care about the CO2
but I’d rather not be breathing sulfur and vanadium compounds thank you very much
and the slag is toxic
Or you could continue the roll out of:
LED lighting
solar roof PV,
mandate 15+SEER efficient HVAC
geothermic heat pumps (coils of tubing under the yard — or a 1/4 hp pump in a well — cuts electricity usage for heating and cooling by at least 50% (yes I know someone who has one)
and Underground thermal energy storage for hot water and radiant heat from business and home thermal PV
Considering 43% of US home electrical usage is for heating, cooling, hot water, and lighting
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=96&t=3
I’m sure a 25% increase in efficiency could easily be found
Heck,
If we converted all hot water to NG instead of electric that’s 9% right there
I live in Scotland, Can anyone tell me how the car heater works.
It’s called thermo-electric heating
snark for snark
check for cheek
Karl, are you really Crackers? Or just pretending to be…
Karl reminded me of another funny car story.
In the summer of 1969, I had a United Auto Workers union job at a factory after my freshman year. Waling on the moon and muscle cars were big.
In any group there is always the odd duck. Fortunately for me, the focus of hazing was they guy who bought a new German VW bug instead of Dodge Hemi Charger. His bragging about good mileage was getting irritating. So someone started putting a little gas in his tank everyday. His bragging got worse but we were all enjoying the joke.
After a few weeks, they started to siphon a little out every day. The WV owner became so depressed he took the car back to the dealer. At lunch the next, the VW owner was very angry. The dealer said nothing was wrong with the car. They said that the VW would never get that good or bad mileage.
I suspect VW dealers were used to odd ducks with hippie vans and all that.
The VW bug was a chick car. Before the factory job I pump gas at Knox Shell. Pumping gas was a great way to meet girls. More than once, I engaged girls in conversation by offering to check the anti-freeze. None had a clue it was air cooled. In one case of the terminally gullible, she let me pick up her car so I could take it home to change the anti-freeze.
Ah, the air and oil cooled V-dub — in a car you and a buddy could actually push out of a ditch (yup been there done that) — That magnesium alloy burn quite hot though
Well Mr. Hardy, thank you for your 3 part post In Defence of the EV. I think it will need defending since building and designing a pure EV like the Tesla Model S with 3/4 of a ton of batteries to lug around forever is just straight up folly. Maybe for Mars, but not here on the good Earth. And a waste of resources, especially needing a 20 minute proprietary super charger if it is to be used as a normal automobile for a highway trip longer than a few hundred miles. I was actually much more sympathetic to EV’s before your articles, but you have probably read some of my earlier comments about needing less battery, and getting a small dedicated ICE generator or fuel cell to charge the battery so it can operate like any other normal ICE car on the market. Without having to completely rewire the house, neighbourhood or Country. I definitely won’t be be buying a dedicated ICE now, and I thank you for that. I am still a bit disappointed that some people here are so extremely negative about the technology, since the maturity of the technology will be worth it someday, albeit not being applied wisely now. Which is why maybe some are so hostile to the idea. But I am sure, as with most everything, a new battery technology will come along sooner or later, perhaps with liquid electrolyte that we just fill like a fuel tank, with a 600 mile range. Then this all makes perfect sense.
It appears the big automakers may get this right with time, since they are not blinded by an obsession, such as Musk has been, or even more locally here, how Karl here just appears to be hyping it for some ulterior motive. Perhaps he is on commission. Tesla is maybe another case now for failure and other company reasons, but their stock has definitely peaked the last few months. I am short Tesla stock now the last 6 weeks, because they have been mismanaged and are going to be facing headwinds on several fronts now that they have consolidated Solar City into their mix dragging their earnings down. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Tesla faces some sort of legal sanction for misleading statements it has made about earnings and deliveries and accepting down payments for vehicles it knows it won’t be able to deliver in any timely fashion. And they are a public company, for which Elon Musk as CEO is responsible. I wouldn’t want to be him right now. I would be planning a getaway to Mars, one way, and leave everyone here on the good Earth holding the bag.
All in all, I think for now and the next 3-5 years, the pure EV will be a fairly expensive vehicle for a mass roll out with a bleak prospect for the required infrastructure rollout regarding the charging stations and varying proprietary super chargers. It won’t happen anytime soon at these oil prices in any event, unless it is an option on most every mid sized model that I can get a dedicated micro sized fuel cell or micro ICE generator. Otherwise it is just an expensive brick to me. Call me when I can get a 4×4 Jeep PHEV with a 75-100 mile range on battery, and a nifty little dedicated 10-15 Kw ICE diesel generator to charge the batteries. That I could tow behind my diesel RV, and it could run my entire RV in stand alone mode complete with A/C in the Arizona desert for as long as I had some diesel fuel. Thanks again for an enlightening discussion.
My logic is based on engineering and science. Hauling heavy batteries around is a bad idea. Storing large amounts of electricity is a bad idea.
Cell phones are a good idea. I got my first when traveling on business.
“and the slag is toxic”
Everything is toxic, even water. It is the dose that kills. The problem with food is you will die if you do not eat. So we eat food high in nutritional value and low in toxicity.
So Karl, do not eat coal slag. I do not warn most people because they a little common sense.
“yes lots of coal is a bad thing — horribly inefficient”
Really! I said it was a good thing. I am a power plant engineer. I do not think coal plants are inefficient.
“I’m sure a 25% increase in efficiency could easily be found”
I have been hearing Karls arguments for 40 years. If something is a good idea I have done it as have many others. You can only take credit once. Maybe karl think I replace my LED with LED.
@ur momisugly Kit
Now you’re just being disingenuous.
If you are a coal powerplant engineer — then you know exactly how toxic COAL fly-ash (said slag in error)
arsenic, copper, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and thallium — yup I really wan’t that crap stored in a retaining pond.
Ooops — Tell that to Kingston TN.
@ur momisugly Kit
You do realize that the weight of battery packs for the chevy Bolt weighs 960 lbs for 60 kWh — which is similar to the weight of a six cylinder engine, plus transmission, plus radiator, plus gas tank, plus fuel, plus catalytic converter, plus exhaust system, plus alternator, plus regular lead acid battery …
@ur momisugly Kit
The Nissan Leaf Battery and control module for the 24 kWH version is only 480 lbs — which is probably less than the combined weight of a comparable 4 cylinder engine plus transmission, plus radiator, plus gas tank, plus fuel, plus catalytic converter, plus exhaust system, plus alternator
(there is apparently an aux 12 volt lead acid battery in the leaf
Darn that pesky science and facts
You guys who are deeply skeptical of the green lobby (as I am) need to put all that noise aside when it comes to EVs. Just because the green lobby supports something doesn’t mean it is a bad thing by default.
Kurt is right in that many posters here haven’t actually read thoroughly or fully understood the article. The author addressed many issues that several posters completely ignored in their ‘by definition’ ill-informed posts.
From an electro-mechanical systems standpoint EVs are a far more elegant solution to most people’s transportation needs than ICE vehicles. They have fewer parts, require less maintenance, are more reliable, and provide tremendous torque values with a high degree of control. ICE technologies will not be able to compete. And with volume production they will be less expensive to produce than comparable ICE vehicles. That’s a reality you naysayers will have the wrap your heads around regardless of politics.
As a “Naysayer” you sould wrap your head around the fact there is not enough Lithium or Cobalt in the known world to create EV’s that would replace ICE’s…even if recycled. The GDP’s of many countries that make the millions of parts that go into ICE vehicles and the whole fossil fuels industry make up the greater part of those GDP’s and would suffer massive unemployment and economic collapse if EV’s become a greater part of global transportation.
Unfortunately, politics were injected into the discussion after the passage of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 and subsequent renewals.
What the EV fans have to wrap their head around is if they want to buy electric cars, more power to them. But don’t expect taxpayers to pick up a hefty portion of the tab. It’s that simple.
Taxpayers don’t pick up anything.
Taxes are taxes, how the government spends revenue is determined by the elected Representatives, Senators, and the POTUS.
If you have an issue regarding how the federal govt. decides to incentivize development of a particular technology or industry — take it up with them.
And like I said before — multiple times — it is only on the FIRST 200,000 cars per Manufacturer — not model
Nissan, GM, and Tesla will hit those marks sometime in 2018, and the credits will phase out by end of CY 2019.
More reliable?! Funny how Teslas are some of the most problem-ridden, unreliable cars in existence.
It is true that Tesla has had some sporadic reliability issues, particularly with the Model S. I won’t give them a complete pass on that but as a fledgling startup automaker that is building a relatively new type of vehicle with less mature manufacturing processes, it’s not exactly shocking. But it’s also not very relevant.
Your interjection of that fact in no way detracts from my main point, which was that with significantly fewer and less complex parts, by definition the number of potential failure points within the whole fault tree is reduced. It’s simple math.
That’s really neat Karl: Taxpayers don’t pick up anything. Of course we are; we taxpayers are giving you, Karl, $7500 so you can diddle around with your expensive plaything. We don’t give a damn if it’s 20,000 or 200,000 or 2 million. It’s still our damn money you’re latching onto.
We’ll see what happens, Karl, when the money runs for those big automakers. Whaddya’ bet those crony capitalists will crank up their campaign contributions for next year’s midterms? And Tesla’s not waiting for the election, either. They’ve tripled their lobbying cash outlay this year compared to last. They can’t let that taxpayer bailout run out.
It’s public choice theory, Karl. Summed up, concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, e.g., Tesla pays money to candidates’ campaigns and in turn those elected representatives, senators, and the POTUS pass laws favorable to Tesla. And those laws they pass transfers money from taxpayers’ pockets into Tesla’s pocket. It’s really that simple. Unfortunately for Tesla, their biggest campaign contribution last year went to waste:
Poor dears. Money down the drain. But this guy knows the score when it comes to incentivizing the development of a particular technology or industry:
That’s really neat Karl: Taxpayers don’t pick up anything. Of course we are; we taxpayers are giving you, Karl, $7500 so you can diddle around with your expensive plaything. We don’t care if it’s 20,000 or 200,000 or 2 million. It’s still our money you’re latching onto.
We’ll see what happens, Karl, when the money runs for those big automakers. Whaddya’ bet those crony capitalists will crank up their campaign contributions for next year’s midterms? And Tesla’s not waiting for the election, either. They’ve tripled their lobbying cash outlay this year compared to last. They can’t let that taxpayer bailout run out.
It’s public choice theory, Karl. Summed up, concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, e.g., Tesla pays money to candidates’ campaigns and in turn those elected representatives, senators, and the POTUS pass laws favorable to Tesla. And those laws they pass transfers money from taxpayers’ pockets into Tesla’s pocket. It’s really that simple. Unfortunately for Tesla, their biggest campaign contribution last year went to waste:
Poor dears. Money down the drain. But this guy knows the score when it comes to incentivizing the development of a particular technology or industry:
Taxpayers pay taxes
The Government decides what to do with the revenue it collects, and the debt it sells to finance its spending.
It is a false equivalency to say “taxpayers pick up” or “taxpayers give anybody anything”
A little context, Karl, since you seem to have quite a disconnect between the governed and the governors. Are you Canadian by chance? [Emphasis mine]:
Cap
Read the Constitution
Well — I’ll quote it for you
“Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Did you pay attention in Civics Class?
Regardless of what Americans View — the FACT is that the constitution differs from common opinion
Did you know that for the first several elections, the Electoral College WERE APPOINTED for every single STATE??
In 1876 the Electoral College for Colorado was appointed by the State Legislature.
Constitutionally, the State Legislatures could invest the Governor of each state the power to appoint all of the electoral college members, and legislate that they MUST follow his dictate regarding who they choose, and in the event they are faithless, unseat them and choose himself.
Yes, a cabal of governors could elect the POTUS Constituionally, regardless of the vote of the people.
Not very educated regarding the US constitution , ARE YOU ???
@CAP
The Constitution was written by Landowning and Slaveholding White Men. And it was designed to keep them in power and control over the rest of the populace.
Why did it take over 100 years for women to get suffrage?
Why is there no popular vote for POTUS?
The US is NOT a democracy — it is a Representative Republic.
And the State Legislatures and Senate and Congress Itself — get to choose how (not where) Senators and Representatives are selected
“1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,5 unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.”
You are truly naive.
The Congress controls the populace — by Constitutional Mandate, Congress has simp[ly not commonly exercised it’s Constitutionally Mandated control over the electoral process for Senate and HOR.
but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Puh-lease, taxpayers absolutely pick up the tab when government chooses to subsidize products that nobody would invest in without the subsidies, because the government in its infinite “wisdom” (spelled S-T-U-P-I-D-I-T-Y) “thinks” it should “push” the public at large into buying (and/or because their “friends” who line their pockets and/or their election/re-election “campaign” war chests want them to). Making a distinction between taxpayers paying taxes and government spending the taxes (and then some, increasing the cost of their spending even more, and which is ALSO borne by the taxpayers) is meaningless.
I guess it was inevitable: Karl pulled the race card. EVs are great ’cause no more racism.
Or something.
Way to deflect and not address your ignorsnce of the Constitution and how our Government is and can be elected.
EPIC FAIL
My apologies for a technical mistake in my comment above. I should not have applied the sqrt(3) adjustment to single phase residential service. It only applies to larger three phase service (including commercial installations such as a Tesla Supercharger.) The correct residential/commercial AC power adjustment is for power factor, generally a bit less than 1.0
Here is the actual electric supply data for my brand new home, in a brand new rather high-end development. (To be generous, I’m assuming a 1.0 power factor which is unrealistic but a nit.)
* The total of the breakers in my panel is 525A (126kW)
* My service is 240V, 150A (36kW) … i.e. about 1/4 of the theoretical potential. I am sure my neighbors with larger homes have 200A service. But let’s assume they are all 150A like mine.
* There are 16 homes on my block. If all 16 homes used max load (36kW), that would be 576kW of load.
* Our block has a single pad-mounted transformer… 50 kVA at 100% load. (50kW at 1.0pf)
In other words, each home gets an average of 3kW continuous power before we’re overloading the transformer.
If all 16 homes simultaneously used a 10kW Tesla charger and nothing else, that would be 160kW of load, more than 300% of rated capacity.
Bottom line: even in our brand new neighborhood, our infrastructure is not designed to handle such huge power draws. I assure you the situation is worse in older neighborhoods. What I wrote above about the infrastructure cost of rewiring neighborhoods is exactly correct.
To make 10kW charging stations viable in every or even the majority of homes in any urban/suburban neighborhood will require a huge investment in upgraded equipment.
*** If curious about the capacity of a pad transformer in your neighborhood, look for labels and utility-supplied numbers on the box. Also search for utility transformer specs for your city, which should include a table of approved transformer sizes and some kind of numbering system. My box has “50 129” which according to a table for my city means 50kVA, type 129.)