Global Warming fix?
-
@dkf said in Global Warming fix?:
@boomzilla said in Global Warming fix?:
Correlation and all that.
You can't really be sure which way round the causality goes, as the data doesn't normally really have that sort of resolution, but a massive change in environmental conditions would probably kill a lot of things. It's not a dumb assumption. We also know there are natural events which can cause such things (major meteorite strikes, large scale volcanism, etc.) Could the other way round also work? Well, if something were to wipe out a lot of plants then that would have a big temporary impact on the climate, as there'd be less carbon fixation and a lot more methane released (during decomposition of all that wood) so that's not crazy either.
So… correlation is about what we can manage (for all prehistoric climate events) unless we get really lucky with the data.
All true, of course. But the changes we're talking about here (atmospheric CO2) are not what I'd call huge. Certainly not WRT the chart I posted. The scale of those changes vs what we've been emitting are very different.
I've said it before and I still think that it'll be something like the thing in the OP, or some kind of algae that we grow out at sea (plenty of water and sunlight) that produces some kind of liquid fuel that will eventually replace fossil fuels for us. But we're not there yet and I don't see any real reason to panic about it.
-
@dfdub said in Global Warming fix?:
Still, the rate of change is significantly different than the natural rate of change would be.
I don't think that can be said with significant certainty. We have no records of a climate change. Yeah, there's the cord in fossilized trees and arctic ice, but there's still a lot about those periods that we don't know. And to go along with what we don't know: how much does cloud cover play a roll? What about oceanic warming/cooling? What about other factors we aren't even aware of yet?
Projections of what the natural rate of change would be right now are just guesses with no way to confirm them.
-
@kazitor said in Global Warming fix?:
Anyway, it’s a neat demonstration of these large increases of global temperature each coinciding with an extinction event. Assuming you know your extinction events.
I know one big one at 65M, and based on that graph it was preceded by tens of millions of years where the average temperature had plateaued, with uninterrupted decline in atmospheric CO2 until after the event
-
If this works, it should be used like this:
You fix the CO2 into ethanol using electricity from some clean source (nuclear, hydro and those new expensive renewables), use it as car fuel (it actually makes good fuel, it's just not used much because the present production methods would compete with food supply), then fix the resulting CO2 back. Tesla BTFO.
-
Where is your sense of adventure?
-
@sebastian-galczynski I think a bigger reason it isn't used more is because it's way less efficient than gasoline. We have ethanol blended fuel with 5 or 10% ethanol, or up to 15% for "Flex fuel" capable cars, and the net result is gasoline that gets 5-10% less mileage
-
@hungrier said in Global Warming fix?:
I think a bigger reason it isn't used more is because it's way less efficient than gasoline.
Not really. What matters is miles per dollar, not miles per gallon. The problem is that if we replaced all gas with ethanol, almost all arable land woud need to be dedicated to its production, so both food and ethanol would be very expensive (and some people would starve). Making ethanol from atmospheric CO2 and electricity changes that. Not that it would be cheap enough with today's prices of electricity, which are basically cost of fossil fuel divided by efficiency of the steam turbine, but if we run out of oil and coal it would be a great idea.
-
-
@hungrier said in Global Warming fix?:
@sebastian-galczynski I think a bigger reason it isn't used more is because it's way less efficient than gasoline. We have ethanol blended fuel with 5 or 10% ethanol, or up to 15% for "Flex fuel" capable cars, and the net result is gasoline that gets 5-10% less mileage
Ethanol has about 30% less energy content compared to gasoline. That's not really that much of a difference compared to the huge changes in cars and infrastructure required to go electrical.
Synthetic diesel would be even better, as it requires no changes at all. From there being almost no push in that direction I can only assume the synthesis is seriously inefficient, though.
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in Global Warming fix?:
Not that it would be cheap enough with today's prices of electricity, which are basically cost of fossil fuel divided by efficiency of the steam turbine, but if we run out of oil and coal it would be a great idea.
It's particularly interesting for use in aviation and the chemicals industry, as they're both unable to switch to direct electrical power for much of what they do. (The ethanol will need to be on-converted into other compounds, but we know how to do that.)
-
@sebastian-galczynski I think per gallon is a perfectly reasonable measurement, and that growing crops to make ethanol to adulterate gasoline is both a problem of making gas more inefficient, and making worse use of arable land.
Of course if we can pull ethanol out of the air for a significantly reduced cost, then transitioning to "flex fuel" or ethanol engines could be worthwhile, even if it does mean that we'd have to fill up our cars more often. And it would still be way better than electric cars.
-
Don't worry, we are all in this together.
-
@hungrier said in Global Warming fix?:
growing crops to make ethanol to adulterate gasoline is both a problem of making gas more inefficient, and making worse use of arable land.
The issue is that only really sugarcane produces enough sugar per acre to be worthwhile doing it, and that only barely. There are better things we can do with most cropland.
Directly powered electrical vehicles are more efficient than the process in the main article for the simple reason that there's fewer conversion steps. However, not everything can work that way, and processes such as has been described mean that we're not going to be stuck. If the process is cheap enough, we'll be able to consider pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and burying it… which would be a magic wand technofix to many climate problems and also isn't economic yet. But maybe it will become possible. The good thing is that it doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics.
-
@hungrier said in Global Warming fix?:
@sebastian-galczynski I think per gallon is a perfectly reasonable measurement, and that growing crops to make ethanol to adulterate gasoline is both a problem of making gas more inefficient, and making worse use of arable land.
It's less efficient, but it also has higher octane rating. In fact pure ethanol has octane rating of 113, so it's less knock-prone than any gasoline, including the leaded avgas. This means lighter and more durable engines which would compensate for the bigger fuel tank.
-
@abarker said in Global Warming fix?:
And to go along with what we don't know: how much does cloud cover play a roll?
I'm not a climatologist (and I don't play one on TV, although maybe occasionally on the internet), but from my layman's understanding, we know it plays a huge role, and it acts in opposition to warming. (Increased temperature → increased evaporation → more water vapor in the air → more clouds → higher albedo (reflectance) → less heat absorbed from sunlight → lower temperature.) What we don't know are all the parameters to model how much cloud cover is generated by the water vapor and how much solar energy is blocked. We know the general trends, but not enough details to model them. And because complicated and unknown, AIUI, most climate models don't even try. Which means those models are definitely wrong — maybe badly, maybe drastically, but really wrong; the only question is by how much.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker said in Global Warming fix?:
And to go along with what we don't know: how much does cloud cover play a roll?
I'm not a climatologist (and I don't play one on TV, although maybe occasionally on the internet), but from my layman's understanding, we know it plays a huge role, and it acts in opposition to warming. (Increased temperature → increased evaporation → more water vapor in the air → more clouds → higher albedo (reflectance) → less heat absorbed from sunlight → lower temperature.) What we don't know are all the parameters to model how much cloud cover is generated by the water vapor and how much solar energy is blocked. We know the general trends, but not enough details to model them. And because complicated and unknown, AIUI, most climate models don't even try. Which means those models are definitely wrong — maybe badly, maybe drastically, but really wrong; the only question is by how much.
It actually depends on what kind of clouds. Those at higher altitudes act to keep more heat in and those down lower tend to reflect light which redirects energy that would otherwise turn into heat and therefore make things warmer. But we don't have a good enough handle on the amounts of either or how they change on...pretty much any scale to make good predictions. Still lots of unknowns and that's before you get to the thorny issue of simulating anything at scale.
-
@boomzilla said in Global Warming fix?:
I don't see any real reason to panic about it.
That's the whole point, though: take it seriously now so there won't be a need to panic later. Just look at how much of the Y2K panic would never have happened if our industry had started taking the problem seriously 10 years earlier instead of waiting until the 11th hour to fix it because at that point there was no other choice but to treat it as an emergency.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@boomzilla said in Global Warming fix?:
I don't see any real reason to panic about it.
That's the whole point, though: take it seriously now so there won't be a need to panic later.
I'm saying your version of "take it seriously" might as well be panic.
Just look at how much of the Y2K panic would never have happened if our industry had started taking the problem seriously 10 years earlier instead of waiting until the 11th hour to fix it because at that point there was no other choice but to treat it as an emergency.
No.
-
@boomzilla said in Global Warming fix?:
I'm saying your version of "take it seriously" might as well be panic.
When the "non-panic" response is "catastrophically destroy the economy of the entire industrialized world," I'd hate to see the "real panic" response.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Global Warming fix?:
@boomzilla said in Global Warming fix?:
I'm saying your version of "take it seriously" might as well be panic.
When the "non-panic" response is "catastrophically destroy the economy of the entire industrialized world," I'd hate to see the "real panic" response.
To some people, "serious" means throwing money at renewables research and stuff like that. I'm not sure where @Mason_Wheeler is on that axis, but I know he thinks that electric cars are ready to scale.
We've previously discussed with him the challenges of everyone trying to charge their car at work (which is maybe OBE for a while anyways) or in places where your parking spot isn't near any accessible electric infrastructure and none of it seemed to phase him.
-
@boomzilla said in Global Warming fix?:
electric infrastructure and none of it seemed to phase him.
Maybe we need to try using 240V 3-phase power on him.
-
@boomzilla Yes, we did discuss that, and you appear to have missed the most relevant point: basic supply and demand. The charging infrastructure in parking lots will inevitably grow to meet demand, because as more electric vehicles end up in circulation, if one venue refuses to invest in charging equipment, their drivers will take their business elsewhere, to their more forward-thinking competitor across town. Your argument basically amounts to "this will never happen in the future because it isn't that way now."
-
@Mason_Wheeler no, I did not miss that. You imagined that it would be a lot cheaper than any rational estimate to supply it at high levels and that's before any big conversion away from fossil fueled electricity.
-
Well California, what with its rolling blackouts, would love the increased demand from all those electric cars.
-
@boomzilla I'm under no illusions as to the cost. My argument is that it is necessary anyway, and the longer we put it off, the more expensive it will be. An ounce of prevention and all that...
-
@boomzilla said in Global Warming fix?:
To some people, "serious" means throwing money at renewables research and stuff like that.
Of course, that's not nearly "serious" enough for the verdant unclothed anguilliform sorts. They're the ones I worry about; renewable research is merely expensive, not economy-destroying.
-
@HardwareGeek Precisely. As I've said elsewhere, the dose makes the poison.
-
It's too bad that electric vehicles have (so far) beat out fuel cell vehicles. At least with fuel cells you can refuel on a timescale similar to refueling a ICE vehicle, as opposed to hours with an EV.
-
@abarker The "hours" bit is a strawman. The length isn't relevant when refueling doesn't require a dedicated facility.
If I can bring my car home and plug it in at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it takes 2 minutes or 14 hours, because it's going to be over 14 hours before I need to leave for work the next day.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker The "hours" bit is a strawman. The length isn't relevant when refueling doesn't require a dedicated facility.
If I can bring my car home and plug it in at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it takes 2 minutes or 14 hours, because it's going to be over 14 hours before I need to leave for work the next day.
Except for the myriad of scenarios where it can't just charge all night. Or you need to travel beyond its charge in a single day.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker The "hours" bit is a strawman. The length isn't relevant when refueling doesn't require a dedicated facility.
Which most people will still need.
-
@Dragoon said in Global Warming fix?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker The "hours" bit is a strawman. The length isn't relevant when refueling doesn't require a dedicated facility.
If I can bring my car home and plug it in at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it takes 2 minutes or 14 hours, because it's going to be over 14 hours before I need to leave for work the next day.
Except for the myriad of scenarios where it can't just charge all night. Or you need to travel beyond its charge in a single day.
No to mention that most people are already used to going to a dedicated refueling facility, so treating that as a downside of fuel cell vehicles doesn't really make sense.
-
@Dragoon said in Global Warming fix?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker The "hours" bit is a strawman. The length isn't relevant when refueling doesn't require a dedicated facility.
If I can bring my car home and plug it in at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it takes 2 minutes or 14 hours, because it's going to be over 14 hours before I need to leave for work the next day.
Except for the myriad of scenarios where it can't just charge all night.
Such as?
Or you need to travel beyond its charge in a single day.
Oh, such as that. Cross-country road trips. Well, last I checked (which was a few years ago; I wouldn't be surprised if the technology has improved since then,) when you divide the range of a fully-charged EV by the speed limit, you get approximately the amount of time you'd normally go between meals, and a charging time for dedicated supercharger facilities that's less than the time you'd spend having a meal at a restaurant. So again, not really an issue as long as the people setting up supercharger facilities have the good sense to locate them near restaurants.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@Dragoon said in Global Warming fix?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker The "hours" bit is a strawman. The length isn't relevant when refueling doesn't require a dedicated facility.
If I can bring my car home and plug it in at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it takes 2 minutes or 14 hours, because it's going to be over 14 hours before I need to leave for work the next day.
Except for the myriad of scenarios where it can't just charge all night.
Such as?
Power outage, forgot to plug in, staying with someone who doesn't have a charging station, ...
Or you need to travel beyond its charge in a single day.
Oh, such as that. Cross-country road trips. Well, last I checked (which was a few years ago; I wouldn't be surprised if the technology has improved since then,) when you divide the range of a fully-charged EV by the speed limit, you get something pretty close to the amount of time you'd normally go between meals, and a charging time for dedicated supercharger facilities that's less than the time you'd spend having a meal at a restaurant. So again, not really an issue as long as the people setting up supercharger facilities have the good sense to locate them near restaurants.
Sure, if you don't mind degrading the battery for the sake of a road trip.
-
@abarker said in Global Warming fix?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@Dragoon said in Global Warming fix?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker The "hours" bit is a strawman. The length isn't relevant when refueling doesn't require a dedicated facility.
If I can bring my car home and plug it in at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it takes 2 minutes or 14 hours, because it's going to be over 14 hours before I need to leave for work the next day.
Except for the myriad of scenarios where it can't just charge all night.
Such as?
Power outage, forgot to plug in
Then you're in the same "predicament" as when you didn't go to the gas station and top it off today. Unless these conditions persist for several days, standard usage won't run you out of juice.
staying with someone who doesn't have a charging station
Do they have standard AC power? Because "plug it into the wall like a toaster" is fully supported, and is what gives you the charge time measured in hours. If you actually have a charging station, that goes way down.
Or you need to travel beyond its charge in a single day.
Oh, such as that. Cross-country road trips. Well, last I checked (which was a few years ago; I wouldn't be surprised if the technology has improved since then,) when you divide the range of a fully-charged EV by the speed limit, you get something pretty close to the amount of time you'd normally go between meals, and a charging time for dedicated supercharger facilities that's less than the time you'd spend having a meal at a restaurant. So again, not really an issue as long as the people setting up supercharger facilities have the good sense to locate them near restaurants.
Sure, if you don't mind degrading the battery for the sake of a road trip.
Is this "degradation" any worse than that which an ICE experiences over the intensive use a road trip puts it through?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
charging time for dedicated supercharger facilities that's less than the time you'd spend having a meal at a restaurant.
How does that compare to lunch meat, cheese and caffeine from a convenience store (or a cooler in the back of the car), then back on the road? Because that's what I do when I'm driving cross-country. Or a burger at McD and back on the road, which is what I used to do before I had to be gluten-free? I have occasionally (before being gluten-free made eating at any restaurant, ever, a non-thing) eaten at a sit-down restaurant while on the road (as opposed to when stopping for the night or being at the destination), but it's never been typical.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@Dragoon said in Global Warming fix?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker The "hours" bit is a strawman. The length isn't relevant when refueling doesn't require a dedicated facility.
If I can bring my car home and plug it in at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it takes 2 minutes or 14 hours, because it's going to be over 14 hours before I need to leave for work the next day.
Except for the myriad of scenarios where it can't just charge all night.
Such as?
Parking situations where you can't plug it in would be the most common.
-
I've been on several long-distance road trips in the last few years for various reasons, (moving various times, mostly, plus the birth of my nephew which was not quite far enough away to justify taking a plane,) and I've never felt the urge to "grab a bite and get back on the road immediately. Not taking 30-60 minutes to relax and decompress is basically inconceivable to me, because basic health and sanity. If you don't take a few breaks, how do you avoid highway hypnosis
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
Such as?
Multiple people using the car. When you work a non-standard schedule. Other events (after work dinner party, concerts,etc...), in a location that isn't your house, etc...
Oh, such as that. Cross-country road trips. Well, last I checked (which was a few years ago; I wouldn't be surprised if the technology has improved since then,) when you divide the range of a fully-charged EV by the speed limit, you get something pretty close to the amount of time you'd normally go between meals, and a charging time for dedicated supercharger facilities that's less than the time you'd spend having a meal at a restaurant. So again, not really an issue as long as the people setting up supercharger facilities have the good sense to locate them near restaurants.
If by pretty close you mean not really that close, sure. A good EV is <400 miles brand new highways around me are 85 once I am out of the cities, so that is <4 hours unless I am really chancing it (which is a real PITA unlike ICE cars). That is not how long I go between meals nor do I want to spend that long eating a meal if I am just travelling. As noted above running out of charge in an EV is far worse than with an ICE car. With ICE I can just get a gas can, with an EV I have to get it towed. So now I a can't even push it to the town 20 miles down the road. There is the added fun of being tied to those charging stations as well. Again, with ICE I can always carry extra gas with me if I intend to head to an area with lesser coverage (which is actually rather hard to find in the US), that is not an option with EV.
-
@Dragoon said in Global Warming fix?:
highways around me are 85 once I am out of the cities,
Where in the world do you live?!?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
Not taking 30-60 minutes to relax and decompress is basically inconceivable to me, because basic health and sanity. If you don't take a few breaks, how do you avoid highway hypnosis
We spend 5-10? minutes (usually at a rest stop to pee and stretch the legs for a few minutes) on a driver change every 3-5 hours (kind of depends on where we are driving, the more mundane the scenery the more often we change off). We always have a cooler of snacks in the car. The only break for real food is usually dinner (breakfast is had right when we start).
edit:
I should clarify, that we have two types of road trips that we go on. The first (we need to get to destination as quickly as we can), the second is a more open style and on those we will stop as our whims hit us for scenery, sights, etc... We still don't stop for food every 4-5 hours (we have snacks!), but we might hit up a cool fort or civil war battleground along the way.
-
Colorado, I-25, and I-70 are both 85 once you are away from Denver. The others are 75, but you will likely be pulled over going that slowly most of the year. I have been passed while doing 100 on I-25 before (heading north to Wyoming)
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
Is this "degradation" any worse than that which an ICE experiences over the intensive use a road trip puts it through?
Considering that consistent speeds (so highway driving) are far easier on the components than stop and go traffic (or even just standard city driving). Yes, this is less degradation.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker said in Global Warming fix?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@Dragoon said in Global Warming fix?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker The "hours" bit is a strawman. The length isn't relevant when refueling doesn't require a dedicated facility.
If I can bring my car home and plug it in at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it takes 2 minutes or 14 hours, because it's going to be over 14 hours before I need to leave for work the next day.
Except for the myriad of scenarios where it can't just charge all night.
Such as?
Power outage, forgot to plug in
Then you're in the same "predicament" as when you didn't go to the gas station and top it off today.
The difference is that it takes 1 minute to refuel and over an order of magnitude more to recharge.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
Do they have standard AC power? Because "plug it into the wall like a toaster" is fully supported, and is what gives you the charge time measured in hours. If you actually have a charging station, that goes way down.
Yeah, my brother does. The only spots a guest can park are on city streets though, so good luck plugging in your car there.
I suppose I could plug into my buddies diesel generator when I am at his cabin, but that rather defeats the purpose of EV does it not?
What is the max recommended distance for extensions cords when charging an EV? Think it is about 150' from where my parents outdoor power is to where I can park my car.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
I've never felt the urge to "grab a bite and get back on the road immediately. Not taking 30-60 minutes to relax and decompress is basically inconceivable to me, because basic health and sanity. If you don't take a few breaks, how do you avoid highway hypnosis
If I'm on the road, my goal is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible; almost nothing between A and B interests me, at all. (There are exceptions, like stopping in Tucson to see my kids' grandfather, but those are exceptional.) Put as many miles behind me as I can. I do take comfort (meal and restroom) and safety (caffeine and catnap) breaks (and on my last couple of trips between CA and TX, "spend way too much time catching up on TDWTF on my phone" breaks), but they are nearly always at state roadside rest stops that have no refueling or vehicle facilities (maybe, sometimes, an RV waste dump, but not usually even that) and are unlikely to get them in an EV future. For me, at least, highway hypnosis has never been a problem; sleepiness is, but that's what caffeine and catnaps are for.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker said in Global Warming fix?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@Dragoon said in Global Warming fix?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
@abarker The "hours" bit is a strawman. The length isn't relevant when refueling doesn't require a dedicated facility.
If I can bring my car home and plug it in at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it takes 2 minutes or 14 hours, because it's going to be over 14 hours before I need to leave for work the next day.
Except for the myriad of scenarios where it can't just charge all night.
Such as?
Power outage, forgot to plug in
Then you're in the same "predicament" as when you didn't go to the gas station and top it off today.
Not really. You can hit up the gas station on the way to work (or wherever) at the expense of about 5 minutes. You can't say the same for EVs.
Unless these conditions persist for several days, standard usage won't run you out of juice.
Standard EV range varies a lot, as does standard usage. For vehicles in the $35,000 and less range, I would need to recharge my vehicle every night due to my long commute, at least if I wanted a healthy buffer. There are a few in that price range that I could, theoretically, squeeze two days of commuting out of, but I'd be worried about making it home the second day.
staying with someone who doesn't have a charging station
Do they have standard AC power? Because "plug it into the wall like a toaster" is fully supported, and is what gives you the charge time measured in hours. If you actually have a charging station, that goes way down.
The 2020 Hyundai Ioniq EV supports three charging levels: 110V, 220V, and 440V. According to their information, that gives you 35.5 hours, 5.8 hours, and 1 hour charging times, respectively. For a Tesla Model S those times are 72-96 hours, 7.75-10.72 hours, and 1-1.33 hours.
Not exactly "quick."
Or you need to travel beyond its charge in a single day.
Oh, such as that. Cross-country road trips. Well, last I checked (which was a few years ago; I wouldn't be surprised if the technology has improved since then,) when you divide the range of a fully-charged EV by the speed limit,
Again, this will vary widely from vehicle to vehicle. Brand new EVs have ranges from 80 miles up to about 400 miles.
you get something pretty close to the amount of time you'd normally go between meals,
For pure electric vehicles as detailed by InsideEVs, current EVs average 238.6 miles per charge. With a typical freeway speed in the US of 75mph, that comes to about 3.2 hours of driving. I wouldn't consider that "close" to the typical amount of time between meals.
and a charging time for dedicated supercharger facilities that's less than the time you'd spend having a meal at a restaurant.
If you mean a sit down restaurant, sure. But I rarely spend more than thirty minutes at a fast food place, and given the charging times above, it looks like I'll be left with an extra thirty minutes twiddling my thumbs.
So again, not really an issue as long as the people setting up supercharger facilities have the good sense to locate them near restaurants.
Keep telling yourself that.
Sure, if you don't mind degrading the battery for the sake of a road trip.
Is this "degradation" any worse than that which an ICE experiences over the intensive use a road trip puts it through?
Hell, looks like a standard at home charging station has a huge impact on battery life, based on a study performed by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Phoenix, AZ. After 50,000 miles, INL determined that vehicles regularly charged using Level 2 stations saw a 23% drop in capacity, while those regularly charged at a Level 3 station saw a 27% drop in capacity.
So even regular use of a fast charging station won't have a huge impact, but even the performance drop from a Level 2 charging station is a concern, especially since for the longest current ranges, that represents a range reduction of about 100 miles per charge. For middle of the road range vehicles, that would mean I would need to replace the battery about every 2.5 years. Since the batteries alone cost $5,000+, that's a significant maintenance cost over an ICE. I've driven ICE vehicles three times that far without needing to spend even half that much on repairs and maintenance combined.
Guess I just replaced one argument with another.
-
@abarker said in Global Warming fix?:
The 2020 Hyundai Ioniq EV supports three charging levels: 110V, 220V, and 440V. According to their information, that gives you 35.5 hours, 5.8 hours, and 1 hour charging times, respectively. For a Tesla Model S those times are 72-96 hours, 7.75-10.72 hours, and 1-1.33 hours.
So "plug it into the wall like a toaster" charging takes somewhere between 1.5 and 4 days. Not very practical for day-to-day commuting, much less a long-haul road trip.
I would need to replace the battery about every 2.5 years. Since the batteries alone cost $5,000+, that's a significant maintenance cost over an ICE. I've driven ICE vehicles three times that far without needing to spend that much on repairs and maintenance combined.
My current ICE vehicle is 19 years old. I'm not sure I've spent that much on maintenance in its entire lifetime, much less every 2.5 years. Edit: A quick check of my cash flow spreadsheet shows I've spent in total $4699.69 on maintenance/repairs since July 2012 (oldest data I have available). 2013, 2014 and 2018 were relatively expensive, $1000–$1400/year; other years were between $100–$500 — a far cry from (average) $2000/year for EV batteries.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Global Warming fix?:
basic supply and demand.
Considering we've been having rolling blackouts, our current supply can't satisfy the current demand.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Global Warming fix?:
My current ICE vehicle is 19 years old.
Mine's 5y. In that time, I've spent a total of 11235.43 on fuel(7186.05) and maintenance(4049.38). It currently has 70k miles on it.
