I certainly hope we can save the planet we enjoy but after looking at cars for three weeks I cam away with conflicting feelings about EV. I'm not sure we are ready at our late age to get one that only goes 200 miles.

I just purchased my last care (slightly used return lease) most likely (I'm 80+) and I went with gas. If I'm lucky I may be able to get one more and it would have to be EV but they need more distance.

How much is a charging station for 220 v in your garage cost in electricity bill after running all night (8 hours) every night?

Wished I could have bought a Tesla but it wasn't doable with the inventory being tight.

Ghostrider said:

---

Don't worry, the production of an EV releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than does the production of a traditional gas car. Most of the car is made with petroleum products (as is most of your electricity) and you are using rare earth minerals in the battery which is just as bad, if not worse, than petroleum products

---

LOL

I have two friends that own Tesla's. Both like them. One guy just bought his second a few months ago. He said after driving the first one for 5 years, he test drove a traditional combustion vehicle a while but just missed the Tesla performance so went back.

very anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth.

I don't know about net "carbon footprint", etc. I don't think it is that expensive to charge at home, but, again, not sure of data on that. As Ghostrider said, batteries going forward could be an issue. The positive is you don't burn gasoline and oil, at least from environmental side it is a positive.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I certainly hope we can save the planet we enjoy but after looking at cars for three weeks I cam away with conflicting feelings about EV. I'm not sure we are ready at our late age to get one that only goes 200 miles.

I just purchased my last care (slightly used return lease) most likely (I'm 80+) and I went with gas. If I'm lucky I may be able to get one more and it would have to be EV but they need more distance.

How much is a charging station for 220 v in your garage cost in electricity bill after running all night (8 hours) every night?

Wished I could have bought a Tesla but it wasn't doable with the inventory being tight.

---

This guy does a good job of testing various EVs by draining them down to 0%, then seeing the challenges to get to 100%.


This guy does the same but also reviews home chargers.

Good stuff. Thanks much.

If they can come up with working solid state battery that uses a cheap material it will be a game changer. No torque curve, tons of power and amazing acceleration.

Here's one last video you may find informative.

bularry said:

---

The positive is you don't burn gasoline and oil, at least from environmental side it is a positive.

---

Most likely the power plants that produce the electricity for the Tesla burn petroleum products to produce the electricity that goes into the Tesla.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

bularry said:

---

The positive is you don't burn gasoline and oil, at least from environmental side it is a positive.

---

Most likely the power plants that produce the electricity for the Tesla burn petroleum products to produce the electricity that goes into the Tesla.

---

Unless they are generated by wind turbines, or solar panels, of which we have a ton in Pecos County.
We are the #1 producer of wind and solar energy in Texas.
And right now our county commissioners are eyeing a deal to construct the first large-scale battery storage centers in our part of Texas.
That's the next step: store the energy so you have it when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
Are you aware that the City of Georgetown, TX gets all of it electricity from wind and solar located in Pecos County?
It's coming, guys.

Pecos 45 said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

bularry said:

---

The positive is you don't burn gasoline and oil, at least from environmental side it is a positive.

---

Most likely the power plants that produce the electricity for the Tesla burn petroleum products to produce the electricity that goes into the Tesla.

---

Unless they are generated by wind turbines, or solar panels, of which we have a ton in Pecos County.
We are the #1 producer of wind and solar energy in Texas.
And right now our county commissioners are eyeing a deal to construct the first large-scale battery storage centers in our part of Texas.
That's the next step: store the energy so you have it when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
Are you aware that the City of Georgetown, TX gets all of it electricity from wind and solar located in Pecos County?
It's coming, guys.

---

yep, those solar panels and batteries are so environmentally friendly.

Pecos 45 said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

bularry said:

---

The positive is you don't burn gasoline and oil, at least from environmental side it is a positive.

---

Most likely the power plants that produce the electricity for the Tesla burn petroleum products to produce the electricity that goes into the Tesla.

---

Unless they are generated by wind turbines, or solar panels, of which we have a ton in Pecos County.
We are the #1 producer of wind and solar energy in Texas.
And right now our county commissioners are eyeing a deal to construct the first large-scale battery storage centers in our part of Texas.
That's the next step: store the energy so you have it when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
Are you aware that the City of Georgetown, TX gets all of it electricity from wind and solar located in Pecos County?
It's coming, guys.

---

Is there anyway that people with EV can get only wind and solar power 24/7/365 without tapping power from more traditional sources? If so, then I encourage them to make that choice. Should be fun watching them power up when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Or even the shorter winter days that are coming up.

The damage done to the planet by EVs far outweighed I e cars but people fee like they're doing something. It's like wearing a mask, only worse

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

Pecos 45 said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

bularry said:

---

The positive is you don't burn gasoline and oil, at least from environmental side it is a positive.

---

Most likely the power plants that produce the electricity for the Tesla burn petroleum products to produce the electricity that goes into the Tesla.

---

Unless they are generated by wind turbines, or solar panels, of which we have a ton in Pecos County.
We are the #1 producer of wind and solar energy in Texas.
And right now our county commissioners are eyeing a deal to construct the first large-scale battery storage centers in our part of Texas.
That's the next step: store the energy so you have it when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
Are you aware that the City of Georgetown, TX gets all of it electricity from wind and solar located in Pecos County?
It's coming, guys.

---

Is there anyway that people with EV can get only wind and solar power 24/7/365 without tapping power from more traditional sources? If so, then I encourage them to make that choice. Should be fun watching them power up when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Or even the shorter winter days that are coming up.

---

They are building huge battery storage facilities out here to store the electricity when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Just telling you what's going on in far West Texas. Take it as you wish.

There are two coal-fired power stations remaining on the GB grid. They are currently generating twice as much electricity as around 40 offshore windfarms and hundreds of onshore ones.
gridwatch.templar.co.uk

Pecos 45 said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

Pecos 45 said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

bularry said:

---

The positive is you don't burn gasoline and oil, at least from environmental side it is a positive.

---

Most likely the power plants that produce the electricity for the Tesla burn petroleum products to produce the electricity that goes into the Tesla.

---

Unless they are generated by wind turbines, or solar panels, of which we have a ton in Pecos County.
We are the #1 producer of wind and solar energy in Texas.
And right now our county commissioners are eyeing a deal to construct the first large-scale battery storage centers in our part of Texas.
That's the next step: store the energy so you have it when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
Are you aware that the City of Georgetown, TX gets all of it electricity from wind and solar located in Pecos County?
It's coming, guys.

---

Is there anyway that people with EV can get only wind and solar power 24/7/365 without tapping power from more traditional sources? If so, then I encourage them to make that choice. Should be fun watching them power up when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Or even the shorter winter days that are coming up.

---

They are building huge battery storage facilities out here to store the electricity when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Just telling you what's going on in far West Texas. Take it as you wish.

---

Battery storage centers? Sounds environmentally friendly.

OK, there is a difference between opinions and facts.
You can have your opinions ("EV vehicles suck." "They'll never replace traditional power plants with wind turbine/solar."
I'm just giving you facts.
Two of my neighbors have HUGE wind farms on their ranches, and they are doing fine.
They have built FOUR new solar farms out here.
Pecos County leads Texas in wind and solar farms, and in electrical output from them.
Now they are building the battery storage centers out here to store all that power.

You can have your opinions about renewable energy, but the facts are that they (investors) are building tons of new renewable energy facilities out here, west of the Pecos.

If it all sucks, then somebody needs to tell my rancher friends and the investors bankrolling these deals.

Pecos County is a leading producer of both oil & gas, and renewables.
So we're doing both.

Pecos 45 said:

---

You can have your opinions about renewable energy, but the facts are that they (investors) are building tons of new renewable energy facilities out here, west of the Pecos.

---

I do not think EVs suck. There are some definite advantages to EVs and there will be increasing advantages as the technology matures. However, I think to say that EVs are an environmentally friendly alternative to gas and diesel ignores the environmental costs posed by generating the energy to deliver electricity in the vehicle, all of the petroleum products that go into manufacturing the vehicle, and the metals and plastics and disposal costs of the batteries.

As far as wind and solar farms go, sure some folks are making a fortune. These alternative energy sources are heavily subsidized and cost more than traditional power sources to generate a mW of electricity. If the alternative sources, wind and solar, were not heavily subsidized, then you would not see windfarms by the bushel basket (and we might not lost power last winter). Nuclear remains the best option if you are concerned about carbon emissions and you also consider costs. Nuclear's problem is what to do with the waste, but my understanding is that we have technology that is reducing the waste.

Pecos 45 said:

---

OK, there is a difference between opinions and facts.
You can have your opinions ("EV vehicles suck." "They'll never replace traditional power plants with wind turbine/solar."
I'm just giving you facts.
Two of my neighbors have HUGE wind farms on their ranches, and they are doing fine.
They have built FOUR new solar farms out here.
Pecos County leads Texas in wind and solar farms, and in electrical output from them.
Now they are building the battery storage centers out here to store all that power.

You can have your opinions about renewable energy, but the facts are that they (investors) are building tons of new renewable energy facilities out here, west of the Pecos.

If it all sucks, then somebody needs to tell my rancher friends and the investors bankrolling these deals.

Pecos County is a leading producer of both oil & gas, and renewables.
So we're doing both.

---

It's a great investment as the government and left are pushing it hard. There will be a lot of people getting rich off of it (ask Al Gore).

Pecos 45 said:

---

OK, there is a difference between opinions and facts.
You can have your opinions ("EV vehicles suck." "They'll never replace traditional power plants with wind turbine/solar."
I'm just giving you facts.
Two of my neighbors have HUGE wind farms on their ranches, and they are doing fine.
They have built FOUR new solar farms out here.
Pecos County leads Texas in wind and solar farms, and in electrical output from them.
Now they are building the battery storage centers out here to store all that power.

You can have your opinions about renewable energy, but the facts are that they (investors) are building tons of new renewable energy facilities out here, west of the Pecos.

If it all sucks, then somebody needs to tell my rancher friends and the investors bankrolling these deals.

Pecos County is a leading producer of both oil & gas, and renewables.
So we're doing both.

---

Where is Pecos County leading O&G? https://www.rrc.texas.gov/news/030421-december-production-statistics/

The largest area of windmills is ny Abilene, spread out through a couple counties....Pecos has a 3 large companies there though and growing. It's a shame as the windmills are such an eyesore.

I've done plenty of research on renewables and I've seen better criticism than you'll see here, but to add to Pecos points..

I'm arguably more conservative fiscally than any person I've met, but the FACT that is problematic is the population growth and number of people that will demand to participate in the transportation system globally is a staggering number. The oil industry alone cannot support all of that growth in demand, we will run out of fossil fuels someday. Thus we have a looming problem. It can be addressed, but not quickly and not by half measures. Btw, that fact is agreed upon by scientists, economists, and even energy producers.

If you don't agree that's a problem, you're in denial and this whole discussion is pointless. That's fine by me, but I'm done listening if you can't accept that fact.

Here are my predictions and policy suggestions.

• Fracking is fine. The people challenging that are simply freeloaders.
• We need wind and solar investment, but how it's linked is currently the challenge. Best example is the North Sea wind farms that sit outside the Netherlands and Denmark. That's an example of it working. They power the transportation grid in the Netherlands. Point being, we need cities to pay for this in addition to states. Right now the federal government is too heavy handed with it and they are a poor partner.
• Solar is the same issue. Payback periods are longer. But the beneficiaries should not be controlled by the federal government. The beneficiaries need to be local consumers.
• Oil won't go away in the near term, but it will only get cheaper if we diversity our consumption. That's a by product few acknowledge.
• Batteries are the real story. The Musk effort to fix the grid in South Australia should have happened in Texas. Wind and solar are predictable, it's the ability to store that issue. When ERCOT failed, this could have been a solution.
• We need two nuclear power plants. Yesterday. That's the cog in this that needs to be on the table.

The longer we kick the can down the road on fossil fuels, the more beholden we are to the Saudi controlled cartel. The faster we become more energy independent, the better off we will be.
It's really a game of diversity at this point.

EV's are here to stay. It doesn't have anything to do with Tesla, they were simply first to market. Chevy, Toyota, and Volvo are cranking out EV's at a rate that blows Tesla away. And the Koreans are pouring into the hydrogen fuel cell business. I consult on that. The next round of innovation in transportation will be in cities using grid technologies. When a city goes 'clean' and limits vehicles into the city center based on carbon footprint, consumers won't have the same incentive to lay out 40k for an inefficient combustion engine. The technology is there, it's a matter of costs and adoption cycle.

My general advice is to tell others to a) don't invest in gas stations. b) wait for EV's to drop in price, but start planning now to buy and c) vote for nuclear.

Do those three things and you'll be fine.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

I've done plenty of research on renewables and I've seen better criticism than you'll see here, but to add to Pecos points..

I'm arguably more conservative fiscally than any person I've met, but the FACT that is problematic is the population growth and number of people that will demand to participate in the transportation system globally is a staggering number. The oil industry alone cannot support all of that growth in demand, we will run out of fossil fuels someday. Thus we have a looming problem. It can be addressed, but not quickly and not by half measures. Btw, that fact is agreed upon by scientists, economists, and even energy producers.

If you don't agree that's a problem, you're in denial and this whole discussion is pointless. That's fine by me, but I'm done listening if you can't accept that fact.

Here are my predictions and policy suggestions.

• Fracking is fine. The people challenging that are simply freeloaders.
• We need wind and solar investment, but how it's linked is currently the challenge. Best example is the North Sea wind farms that sit outside the Netherlands and Denmark. That's an example of it working. They power the transportation grid in the Netherlands. Point being, we need cities to pay for this in addition to states. Right now the federal government is too heavy handed with it and they are a poor partner.
• Solar is the same issue. Payback periods are longer. But the beneficiaries should not be controlled by the federal government. The beneficiaries need to be local consumers.
• Oil won't go away in the near term, but it will only get cheaper if we diversity our consumption. That's a by product few acknowledge.
• Batteries are the real story. The Musk effort to fix the grid in South Australia should have happened in Texas. Wind and solar are predictable, it's the ability to store that issue. When ERCOT failed, this could have been a solution.
• We need two nuclear power plants. Yesterday. That's the cog in this that needs to be on the table.

The longer we kick the can down the road on fossil fuels, the more beholden we are to the Saudi controlled cartel. The faster we become more energy independent, the better off we will be.
It's really a game of diversity at this point.

EV's are here to stay. It doesn't have anything to do with Tesla, they were simply first to market. Chevy, Toyota, and Volvo are cranking out EV's at a rate that blows Tesla away. And the Koreans are pouring into the hydrogen fuel cell business. I consult on that. The next round of innovation in transportation will be in cities using grid technologies. When a city goes 'clean' and limits vehicles into the city center based on carbon footprint, consumers won't have the same incentive to lay out 40k for an inefficient combustion engine. The technology is there, it's a matter of costs and adoption cycle.

My general advice is to tell others to a) don't invest in gas stations. b) wait for EV's to drop in price, but start planning now to buy and c) vote for nuclear.

Do those three things and you'll be fine.

---

Yep, it will be a mix of energy that is needed. For example, your UK wind farm example is having issues right now…..the wind stopped blowing. Read the WSJ today.

I know those windmills came through for us big time last winter.

Here is the article

https://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-prices-in-europe-hit-records-after-wind-stops-blowing-11631528258

It would appear no one knows what a solid state battery, or torque curve is.

Nuclear and PEVs are the answer. Had a Prius that went 400 miles on an 8 gallon tank. Didn't have to plug it in. Was fun to drive.

Problems with wind/solar have been addressed above, but I didn't see one that I think is important. Transmitting electricity over long distances isn't very efficient. Users need to be close to generation sites.

As to poster near the top re: renewable energy delivered to your house… I received a promo from my electricity provider telling me I could sign up for 100% renewable energy so I called them. Told the lady on the line I was interested but had some questions. I asked if they would be running a new line to my house and she said no. I asked how this clean energy would be delivered then. She said it just comes like it always has. She realized, as I already had, that I would just be paying a premium but getting the same old dirty electricity that everyone else was.

MaxTeller said:

---

It would appear no one knows what a solid state battery, or torque curve is.

---

I like to consider that we haven't really studied battery technology for like 20 years. We made some rechargeable batteries that'd power your laptop for 10 hours, and sort of figured that was goodenough (!).

The field is still nascent. Both in economical size (like storing wind/hydro/solar power for the grid) and in charge densities (for powering vehicles and the like), lots of discoveries await.

Most of the systems in a conventional car are dedicated to overcoming the flaws of internal combustion. Two of them, cooling and exhaust, are dedicated to rejecting energy entirely. Once the need for a transmission to overcome torque limitations is considered, it should be obvious that we could use a better way once one is available.

Mr Tulip said:

---

MaxTeller said:

---

It would appear no one knows what a solid state battery, or torque curve is.

---

I like to consider that we haven't really studied battery technology for like 20 years. We made some rechargeable batteries that'd power your laptop for 10 hours, and sort of figured that was goodenough (!).

The field is still nascent. Both in economical size (like storing wind/hydro/solar power for the grid) and in charge densities (for powering vehicles and the like), lots of discoveries await.

Most of the systems in a conventional car are dedicated to overcoming the flaws of internal combustion. Two of them, cooling and exhaust, are dedicated to rejecting energy entirely. Once the need for a transmission to overcome torque limitations is considered, it should be obvious that we could use a better way once one is available.

---

They call the minerals in a battery "rare earth minerals" for a reason.

Ghostrider said:

---

Mr Tulip said:

---

MaxTeller said:

---

It would appear no one knows what a solid state battery, or torque curve is.

---

I like to consider that we haven't really studied battery technology for like 20 years. We made some rechargeable batteries that'd power your laptop for 10 hours, and sort of figured that was goodenough (!).

The field is still nascent. Both in economical size (like storing wind/hydro/solar power for the grid) and in charge densities (for powering vehicles and the like), lots of discoveries await.

Most of the systems in a conventional car are dedicated to overcoming the flaws of internal combustion. Two of them, cooling and exhaust, are dedicated to rejecting energy entirely. Once the need for a transmission to overcome torque limitations is considered, it should be obvious that we could use a better way once one is available.

---

They call the minerals in a battery "rare earth minerals" for a reason.

---

The "solid state" batteries mentioned earlier do not require those elements. Iron sulfides are promising new anode materials. By using them against stuff like magnesium and sodium in a matrix, electron flows are not depleted. The battery could be cycled forever in theory. This would be an extremely low cost, low impact idea.

My point is that we haven't explored this chemistry in depth because we had "good enough". Li-OH batteries were decently able to keep the devices we needed to run charged. Cell phones and laptops, mostly. No one needed a large energy pile on the grid.

The iron disulfide chemistry mentioned earlier would be ideal to store solar or wind near the source. It's cheap and straightforward. As more research progresses, we'll get smaller, lighter, and more efficient.

Mr Tulip said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

Mr Tulip said:

---

MaxTeller said:

---

It would appear no one knows what a solid state battery, or torque curve is.

---

I like to consider that we haven't really studied battery technology for like 20 years. We made some rechargeable batteries that'd power your laptop for 10 hours, and sort of figured that was goodenough (!).

The field is still nascent. Both in economical size (like storing wind/hydro/solar power for the grid) and in charge densities (for powering vehicles and the like), lots of discoveries await.

Most of the systems in a conventional car are dedicated to overcoming the flaws of internal combustion. Two of them, cooling and exhaust, are dedicated to rejecting energy entirely. Once the need for a transmission to overcome torque limitations is considered, it should be obvious that we could use a better way once one is available.

---

They call the minerals in a battery "rare earth minerals" for a reason.

---

The "solid state" batteries mentioned earlier do not require those elements. Iron sulfides are promising new anode materials. By using them against stuff like magnesium and sodium in a matrix, electron flows are not depleted. The battery could be cycled forever in theory. This would be an extremely low cost, low impact idea.

My point is that we haven't explored this chemistry in depth because we had "good enough". Li-OH batteries were decently able to keep the devices we needed to run charged. Cell phones and laptops, mostly. No one needed a large energy pile on the grid.

The iron disulfide chemistry mentioned earlier would be ideal to store solar or wind near the source. It's cheap and straightforward. As more research progresses, we'll get smaller, lighter, and more efficient.

---

Wireless power. Will it solve everything?

Unless you want to go with the full on Nikolai Tesla ultra high frequency broadcast energy stuff (not actually practicable), then "wireless power" is really "wireless charging".

A moving electric current creates a magnetic field perpendicular to it. Having a wire move through that field will create a current in that wire. This is roughly "induction". Transformers and other non-contact isolated electrical devices rely on it.

By designing a roadway with wires laid into it, then a vehicle with similarly situated wires in the undercarriage would be able to continuously recharge its onboard batteries as it moved. Clearly, that's infrastructure dependent, but a really decent idea to pursue.

Mr Tulip said:

---

Unless you want to go with the full on Nikolai Tesla ultra high frequency broadcast energy stuff (not actually practicable), then "wireless power" is really "wireless charging".

A moving electric current creates a magnetic field perpendicular to it. Having a wire move through that field will create a current in that wire. This is roughly "induction". Transformers and other non-contact isolated electrical devices rely on it.

By designing a roadway with wires laid into it, then a vehicle with similarly situated wires in the undercarriage would be able to continuously recharge its onboard batteries as it moved. Clearly, that's infrastructure dependent, but a really decent idea to pursue.

---

And you wouldn't need to have every road built that way, or even the whole roadway. You could have recharge lanes, for example.

Mr Tulip said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

Mr Tulip said:

---

MaxTeller said:

---

It would appear no one knows what a solid state battery, or torque curve is.

---

I like to consider that we haven't really studied battery technology for like 20 years. We made some rechargeable batteries that'd power your laptop for 10 hours, and sort of figured that was goodenough (!).

The field is still nascent. Both in economical size (like storing wind/hydro/solar power for the grid) and in charge densities (for powering vehicles and the like), lots of discoveries await.

Most of the systems in a conventional car are dedicated to overcoming the flaws of internal combustion. Two of them, cooling and exhaust, are dedicated to rejecting energy entirely. Once the need for a transmission to overcome torque limitations is considered, it should be obvious that we could use a better way once one is available.

---

They call the minerals in a battery "rare earth minerals" for a reason.

---

The "solid state" batteries mentioned earlier do not require those elements. Iron sulfides are promising new anode materials. By using them against stuff like magnesium and sodium in a matrix, electron flows are not depleted. The battery could be cycled forever in theory. This would be an extremely low cost, low impact idea.

My point is that we haven't explored this chemistry in depth because we had "good enough". Li-OH batteries were decently able to keep the devices we needed to run charged. Cell phones and laptops, mostly. No one needed a large energy pile on the grid.

The iron disulfide chemistry mentioned earlier would be ideal to store solar or wind near the source. It's cheap and straightforward. As more research progresses, we'll get smaller, lighter, and more efficient.

---

Correct. Solid state batteries also are 5-10 yrs away…at least though. There are still many challenges, hence, Tesla isn't looking at them right now. There will be a lot of advancements in energy, it will just take awhile and we will need to diversify our energy sources.

Mr Tulip said:

---

By designing a roadway with wires laid into it, then a vehicle with similarly situated wires in the undercarriage would be able to continuously recharge its onboard batteries as it moved. Clearly, that's infrastructure dependent, but a really decent idea to pursue.

---

It's here.

Polaris and a few other property developers are looking into it. But agree completely with you that it's not a stretch. It is an idea that will almost eliminate auto accidents completely and would fit very well in retirement communities. Thus the interest from real estate community. Automakers actually have a tremendous disincentive for this approach, so the govtech companies are tiptoeing into the market.

Toyota commissioned a mobility study and created a metric that showed the sunk dollars in idle capacity of a typical parking lot vs a grid system like you described. The payoff is there, but the cost will be borne by municipalities, not states or the federal gov.

Point being, the change will have to come from communities, not automakers.