2035: California Gasoline Powered Car Phase-Out

Bangher

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Messages
74
Reaction score
68
My daily driver was a 2006 Malibu v6 with 302,489 miles on the odometer before I traded it in on what I own now (last year)... plus my 4 other vehicles... I totaled my 2019 Subaru and my 2015 Chrysler in the same year... but those are my more fun cars... my Prius is still kicking (160k) but I have to rework the battery pack again... It was my DD for awhile... it’s always hard to say how long a car will last for me... but considering my last daily driver has lasted that long and my Prius has as well... I have to say the ICE has been kind to me... but I do all my maintenance... the Malibu was still running btw... probably had another 40k left in her... but it’s always hard to say...

My current daily driver has 60k on it... so I’ve already put 50k on it in a year...
50k in a year is a lot of driving.
I am guessing they will tax you to high heaven if you want to keep a gas powered vehicle.
 

GotWake

Speed Kills
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
10,292
Reaction score
12,713
Location
NC
Alright, some calculations. Californians travel about 340.115 billion vehicle miles per year: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/vm2.cfm

340.115 billion miles a year is about 931.8 million miles/day or about 38.8 million miles/hour. A good BEV can do about 4 miles/kWh so if we converted the entire fleet of vehicles in California to electricity, today, the fleet would consume an average of 38.8 million miles * (1 kWh/4 miles) = ~9,700,000 kWh every hour, or roughly 9.7 gigawatts of average static load. The grid currently operates at between 20,000 MW (20 GW) at night up to around 45,000 MW (45 GW) at peak times so you're talking about increasing average load by about 20-50%, depending on time of day. I think this is feasible and given the annoying maintenance you have to do in order to keep a car with an ICE on the road (oil changes, transmission fluid, etc.) is well worth the tradeoffs. And vehicles will probably end up being part of the energy storage solution, since there's enough energy in a BEV battery to power a typical house for over a day and that energy can be fed back into the grid if it's needed.

Where the regulators screwed up was in allowing fossil fuel plants to go offline. Renewable energy is not a substitute for fossil fuels, it just means you can run your fossil fuel generators more infrequently and build them more cheaply and optimize them for quick ramp up as opposed to continuous generation. And of course the second rule is you never rely on imports to make up a power deficit; if you can get them, great, but you'd better have sufficient internal supply in case the grid gets isolated by a natural disaster or everyone else is having a heat wave at the as time. If they put actual engineers on the CPUC who understand that stuff, the rolling blackouts we had last month probably wouldn't have happened. With V2G technology though, you can further reduce the duration that those gas fired peaker plants have to operate.

Wouldn't this just be for new car sales? The way I calculated it, there would be an annual increase of 3% each year. Based off of 2 million new vehicle sales, average 14,500 miles per year and Telsa's 26 kWh/100 miles. That was assuming all ICE cars traded for EV.
 

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
10,146
Reaction score
11,038
Location
Saratoga, CA
Wouldn't this just be for new car sales? The way I calculated it, there would be an annual increase of 3% each year. Based off of 2 million new vehicle sales, average 14,500 miles per year and Telsa's 26 kWh/100 miles. That was assuming all ICE cars traded for EV.
Yes it would. But the calculations assume that you could wave a magic wand and convert the entire fleet of vehicles to EVs instantaneously. In reality, the transition will probably take about 10-15 years, extending until 2050, and the ramp up would be gradual. Well actually, I don't think it will take until 2050, because it has already started. Anyway, it was rather interesting calculating the total amount of power input (minus potential regeneration braking) needed to move every vehicle in the state, averaged over an entire year. I had no idea that it would be roughly 10 gigawatts. I didn't even have a ballpark figure because I'd never done this calculation before. Transportation therefore uses about 25-35% of the equivalent electrical energy consumption in the state (although some vehicles are already doing this, including mine) and that's how much generation capacity, on average, would need to be added.
 
Last edited:

R4D4RUS3R

RADARUSER
Premium Plus
Advanced User
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
1,227
Reaction score
1,623
I thought the idea long term was replaceable battery packs. There would be several sizes which you pay to swap like buying a tank of gas and pull away. No wait. You can top off at home if you like but on longer drives you swap and go. I could use an electric car since my driving is not like some of you with your much higher miles. Main thing I need are more options in a more reasonable price range.

I think its fine they have goals but I doubt even then we will not be ready to let go of gas cars. I just hope I own one with 500+ HP before they are all gone.
 

SVG

PSL +5
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 1, 2017
Messages
529
Reaction score
787
Location
MT
I hear some sadness in your response. Sounds like you're missing Cali to me. Sorry man, I couldn't help myself, LOL.

There you go with that crazy talk again!
 

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
10,146
Reaction score
11,038
Location
Saratoga, CA
I thought the idea long term was replaceable battery packs. There would be several sizes which you pay to swap like buying a tank of gas and pull away. No wait. You can top off at home if you like but on longer drives you swap and go. I could use an electric car since my driving is not like some of you with your much higher miles. Main thing I need are more options in a more reasonable price range.

I think its fine they have goals but I doubt even then we will not be ready to let go of gas cars. I just hope I own one with 500+ HP before they are all gone.
Tesla canceled that program because it wasn't very popular. No one wanted to swap their battery for a used one. In another 5-10 years, DC fast charging will probably be fast enough that it's almost competitive with gasoline (something like 200-300 miles range in 10 minutes). Put DCFC stations at every restroom and fast food restaurant and it's arguably even better than gasoline because you don't need to make a separate stop to refuel after you get food.
 

cihkal

♟️ WWG1WGA ⛈️
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
4,119
Reaction score
7,786
California has become more entertaining than TV. Just got back from Freemont.

Let's see how this goes 😂

Hydrogen 🇺🇲
 

RaggedEdge

RDForum owner and Rdtalk.org Founder
Administrator
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
2,087
Reaction score
5,957
Location
Middle Tennessee
I'm all for anyone that want an electric vehicle. I'm not one of them. I don't believe the government should be able to dictate what we drive. I'm curious if this will be allowed, legally speaking.

I agree with you, but look at what government is already mandating in regards to fuel economy. My guess, this will not be successfully challenged in court.
 

Patton250

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
3,100
Reaction score
4,068
Location
Florida
I agree with you, but look at what government is already mandating in regards to fuel economy. My guess, this will not be successfully challenged in court.
I agree with you. This also goes to show you why legalizing marijuana probably isn’t a good idea because obviously the politicians in California but been hitting it pretty hard.

Besides all these decisions are being based off the pressure from the church of global warming. Now I don’t care what kind of car an individual drives so long as it’s safe to me. If you want to drive a electrical vehicle awesome. However politicians are smoking more than marijuana if they think they’re going to get his entire country switched over from fossil fuels and combustion engines. It’s just not going to happen. Ever. But there still are things we can do to help satisfy the church of global warming. What happened to hydrogen cars? They use combustion engines but with zero emissions. if I recall about 10 years ago they were starting to make them and some pretty decent progress until Our little friend Elon Musk and his beautiful lovely Tesla ruined that program. If Tesla showed us anything it showed us that if you want to fast track a different technology all you need is the federal government to highly incentivize it. As a taxpayer I’d be glad to help fund an incentivized program to fast track a hydrogen-based combustion engine technology for vehicles especially if it will get the church of global warming to shut up for a few decades so the rest of us can live in peace. It wouldn’t be nearly as difficult for automobile manufacturers to adjust to making hydrogen combustion engines as it would to switch to electric and the same for switching our filling stations to hydrogen around the country.
 

CobawLT2010

Land of the quarantined, home of the afraid.
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
5,054
Location
Wuhan, China
50k in a year is a lot of driving.
I am guessing they will tax you to high heaven if you want to keep a gas powered vehicle.

Entirely plausible but excise tax here on plates is ridiculous... $1000+ per year just to plate my cars... but I digress...

To be fair/honest I have no issues with electric cars... my issue is with people trying to cram electric cars down other peoples throats... it’s everywhere... I’m sorry but car journalists ruined the comfortable boats of yesteryear by shoving sporty Nuremberg ring garbage down our throats and now we’re getting 0-60 in less than 3 second electric garbage crammed down our throats now too. I am all for fun cars but there’s something to be said when your driving 40-60k per year... you want something cheap and comfortable and you simply can’t find that combination anymore...

It should be our choice to buy electric... the change should be driven by consumers and capitalism... it’s not currently... it’s being driven by government... and that I don’t like... We should want to buy it because it’s better than what we have now... not because we’re forced to... the government would do better by building a hydrogen network... and funding a way to make it cheaper...
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
10,146
Reaction score
11,038
Location
Saratoga, CA
I'm all for anyone that want an electric vehicle. I'm not one of them. I don't believe the government should be able to dictate what we drive. I'm curious if this will be allowed, legally speaking.

As I said, I think by the time 2035 rolls around, this will be mostly a symbolic piece of legislation. Hardly anyone will want a gasoline powered car for economic and performance reasons alone. Americans love cars that zip from 0-60 in a short amount of time, and just look at stuff like the Tesla Model 3: even the single motor standard range model will do 0-60 in 5.3s. The dual motor long range mode, 4.4s, and the performance model, 3.2s. And the top of the line model costs just $55k (and that's without any tax breaks or incentives because Tesla sold too many cars and that program has ended for them).

What happened to hydrogen cars? They use combustion engines but with zero emissions.
I don't think that was ever the plan for hydrogen.

Combustion engines are horribly inefficient, in general. Well okay, they don't have to be, but the most efficient type of combustion engine that uses an ideal gas as a working fluid is the Carnot engine, whose operation consists of four stages: (1) isothermal expansion; (2) adiabatic expansion; (3) isothermal compression; and (4) adiabatic compression. Carnot engines operate between a "hot" reservoir (call it Th) and a "cold" reservoir (call it Tc) and in order to be a Carnot engine, the engine must exhaust waste gas to the "cold" reservoir at whatever its ambient temperature is, in order words, if it's 75°F outside, the temperature of the exhaust coming out of your tailpipe better be exactly 75°F, otherwise there's still energy in the gas that's being wasted. That's why the isothermal expansion must extract enough energy from the gas until the point where the adiabatic expansion lowers the temperature from Th to Tc, in other words, to the temperature of the outdoor environment. And there are two issues with that. First is that it's not actually possible to hit Carnot efficiency in a real engine, but second is that isothermal expansion and compression take a long time. The cylinder of the engine must sit there and sloooooowly allow the gas to expand, or very slowly compress it, such that it can't run very many expansion/compression cycles in that cylinder, so your engine is going to produce very little power for its displacement. Manufacturers love to tout how many HP/L of displacement their engines have and an efficient combustion engine is basically the complete opposite of that. Furthermore, a very efficient engine would be heavy, and it would take a lot of extra fuel to move that extra mass. So real heat engines basically use adiabatic compression and expansion only, since there is insufficient time for heat transfer, at the cost of efficiency, and open the exhaust valves while the working fluid is still quite hot so that they can run another combustion cycle in the same cylinder. Typical car engines are about 25-35% efficient in converting the energy in fuel to useful work; the highest efficiency I have ever seen in a car ICE is somewhere around 45% (from Toyota).

But then there's fuel cells, where the worst ones are about 40% efficient and the good ones are about 60% efficient (you can get efficiencies up to around 80% with cogeneration, assuming you actually have a use for the waste heat). So if you're going to use hydrogen as a fuel, a fuel cell is definitely the way to go. You also have no moving parts in the source of your power, and most of the rest of the advantages of an EV, just with a different source of electricity. Should be interesting to see what happens and I think the one big hurdle is the energy density of the fuel. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles like the Mirai have to store the hydrogen as a supercritical fluid at almost 700 atmospheres of pressure (around 10,000 PSI) in order to get any amount of decent range.

But the biggest barrier to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles right now is economic. Hydrogen currently costs around $16/kg and a fuel cell vehicle gets around 60-70 miles/kg and so this vehicle would cost around 23-26 ¢/mile to operate (from fuel costs alone). If you're comparing against a vehicle that gets around 40 mpg (which is a fair comparison in the case of the Mirai which does around 65 miles/kg), then that's equivalent to paying around $10/gallon of gas. The problem is although the fuel cells themselves are very efficient, the process of producing, compressing, and transporting hydrogen uses a lot of energy and all of those costs get factored into the final cost of the product you're purchasing and lower the efficiency of the entire process overall. Electricity is actually expensive to transport too (you have to build transmission lines), but we know how to do it very efficiently (without losing too much energy in the process), we've been doing it for years, and more importantly, the infrastructure to do this is already built.

ic-bev-or-hydrogen-fuel-cell-fcv-source-volkswagen.jpg


And as far as burning hydrogen in a traditional combustion engine? Knock off another 10-15% or so in the overall efficiency rate, and increase costs accordingly, and you can see why no one wants to do that. Even with fuel cells, the economics don't make sense right now, it's more early adopters just wanting something cool to drive. They're going to have to get the costs of hydrogen way down in order to compete with BEVs, which can cost as little as 5¢/mile to drive (compare to gasoline, at 8-15¢/mile and FCVs at around 25¢/mile).
Post automatically merged:

It should be our choice to buy electric... the change should be driven by consumers and capitalism... it’s not currently... it’s being driven by government... and that I don’t like... We should want to buy it because it’s better than what we have now... not because we’re forced to... the government would do better by building a hydrogen network... and funding a way to make it cheaper...
For what it's worth, the next car I buy will likely be a Tesla Model 3 or Model Y, and government incentives or pressure has absolutely nothing to do with it. The primary reasons for this are:
1) Ability to refuel it in my garage without ever having to go to a refueling station
2) Performance
3) Low maintenance (no oil changes, transmission fluid changes, reduced wear on brakes)

Oh, and my wife wants it. Which is probably the #1 reason, but there are plenty of reasons to get one in addition to that. I just don't want to do maintenance on two cars with ICEs in them. Last time I changed the oil in my PHEV, I was annoyed because I had to remove 10 clips/bolts just to remove the panel to get to the drain plug, and then when I pulled the drain plug, I had the drain pan slightly out of position and oil spilled onto the floor.

As I've said several times in this thread, I think this move is going to end up being mostly symbolic, and economics will be driving this transition ahead of it. The fuel cell vs. battery car thing is going to be the next big automotive tech war if the price of hydrogen comes down far enough, but the drivetrains of these vehicles are going to be shared (electrical wires connected to 4 independent motors) regardless of where the electricity is coming from. My personal guess is that once we get 1 megawatt or faster DC fast charging (which equates to about 65-70 miles of range added per minute), that'll be fast enough for most people and fuel cell vehicles will become a niche market. Tesla V3 superchargers already operate at up to 250 kW and the CCS spec now allows for up to 350 kW. If you put the charging stations at fast food restaurants and coffee shops, you might even get away with charge rates as low as 400-500 kW (would you rather stand at a gas pump for 3 minutes, then run into the restroom for 3 minutes, then go buy a drink at the convenience store for 3 minutes, or connect a charger and go inside and get a coffee for 10 minutes, if you get 350 miles of range after both activities?). Economics will then drive people to recover the land currently used by gas stations (especially in big cities where land is valuable) and use it for something else.
 
Last edited:

R4D4RUS3R

RADARUSER
Premium Plus
Advanced User
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
1,227
Reaction score
1,623
@STS-134 will you have to install a new circuit in your garage to supply 220v? If I had to have that done I could but it wont be easy. The breaker box is on the other side of the house and pretty full. I’m sure an electrician could manage it.
 

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
10,146
Reaction score
11,038
Location
Saratoga, CA
@STS-134 will you have to install a new circuit in your garage to supply 220v? If I had to have that done I could but it wont be easy. The breaker box is on the other side of the house and pretty full. I’m sure an electrician could manage it.
I have to upgrade the entire breaker panel because it's full. And by "full" I don't mean just that it's out of breaker slots (that can be solved by using a subpanel), I mean "full" as in running out of capacity to supply enough amps to everything I'm going to have connected to it. I figure that J1772 allows up to 80A; my panel cannot handle two J1772 EVSEs operating at 80A (that's 160A) since its entire capacity is lower than that. Even two J1772 EVSEs @ 40A through NEMA 14-50 outlets is 80A and even that is really pushing this panel to its limits (my PHEV is currently using one EVSE and I'd be adding a second). I'm going to have a trenching company dig up and replace the entire service line since it's underground service. Power company will only allow a like for like replacement (same amperage) of the main panel on this service line and so I need to dig up and replace the service line to increase the service amperage.
 

Token

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
334
Reaction score
899
Location
Mojave Desert, CA, USA
340.115 billion miles a year is about 931.8 million miles/day or about 38.8 million miles/hour. A good BEV can do about 4 miles/kWh so if we converted the entire fleet of vehicles in California to electricity, today, the fleet would consume an average of 38.8 million miles * (1 kWh/4 miles) = ~9,700,000 kWh every hour, or roughly 9.7 gigawatts of average static load. The grid currently operates at between 20,000 MW (20 GW) at night up to around 45,000 MW (45 GW) at peak times so you're talking about increasing average load by about 20-50%, depending on time of day. I think this is feasible and given the annoying maintenance you have to do in order to keep a car with an ICE on the road (oil changes, transmission fluid, etc.) is well worth the tradeoffs. And vehicles will probably end up being part of the energy storage solution, since there's enough energy in a BEV battery to power a typical house for over a day and that energy can be fed back into the grid if it's needed.

But for your 9.7 GW you had to spread it across 24 hours. When vehicles are at work places or shopping, or whatever, during the day, I suspect few will be charging. That was why I came up with 20 GW during 10 nighttime hours. Also I appear to have used a higher consumption rate, but that is fine, I was working off rough numbers as an estimate.

In California in 2018 ~15.5 million people took personal passenger vehicles to work every day. Only about 3 million were in some kind of carpool. My numbers assumed that most of these types of vehicles would be the early ones in compliance with the regulation. and these are the heavy users.

One of the techs in my shop drives a Model 3 dual motor. He has a 28 minute commute one way, mixed city/highway, biased more towards highway, which I realize is not in the EVs favor. The average commute in CA is 30 minutes, so I used his consumption for my rough estimate. During the summer his daily use is 22.3 kWh for his round trip. During the winter it is slightly less.

Most consumers are not going to have super chargers at home. I suspect something like a 30 - 50 A Level 2 charging station will be common. On the low end of that scale it is going to take ~3 hours to recharge from the daily average CA commute.

T!
 

doubledge

PSL?
Intermediate User
Joined
May 14, 2019
Messages
956
Reaction score
1,058
But for your 9.7 GW you had to spread it across 24 hours. When vehicles are at work places or shopping, or whatever, during the day, I suspect few will be charging. That was why I came up with 20 GW during 10 nighttime hours. Also I appear to have used a higher consumption rate, but that is fine, I was working off rough numbers as an estimate.

In California in 2018 ~15.5 million people took personal passenger vehicles to work every day. Only about 3 million were in some kind of carpool. My numbers assumed that most of these types of vehicles would be the early ones in compliance with the regulation. and these are the heavy users.

One of the techs in my shop drives a Model 3 dual motor. He has a 28 minute commute one way, mixed city/highway, biased more towards highway, which I realize is not in the EVs favor. The average commute in CA is 30 minutes, so I used his consumption for my rough estimate. During the summer his daily use is 22.3 kWh for his round trip. During the winter it is slightly less.

Most consumers are not going to have super chargers at home. I suspect something like a 30 - 50 A Level 2 charging station will be common. On the low end of that scale it is going to take ~3 hours to recharge from the daily average CA commute.

T!
Awesome conversation guys. Really appreciate the detailed analysis. Truly interesting.
Post automatically merged:

@STS-134 will you have to install a new circuit in your garage to supply 220v? If I had to have that done I could but it wont be easy. The breaker box is on the other side of the house and pretty full. I’m sure an electrician could manage it.
I was in this situation. My panel is at the opposite side of the house. Fortunately I did not have to upgrade it and my basement is unfinished which made pulling the wire a lot easier. I had a Tesla wall changer installed which maxes at 80a. It charges at roughly 50mi of range per hr. I had a 100amp breaker installed to give me a little more room for whatever comes in the future or if I get a second changer for another car. The state gave me a small rebate that covered the cost of the charger and then a little more but it was still expensive. I could have done it cheaper by moving the circuit installed and not used in our laundry room for an electric dryer which is right by the garage but I thought this was going to be better for future capacity. Worked out well.
Post automatically merged:

For what it's worth, the next car I buy will likely be a Tesla Model 3 or Model Y, and government incentives or pressure has absolutely nothing to do with it. The primary reasons for this are:
1) Ability to refuel it in my garage without ever having to go to a refueling station
2) Performance
3) Low maintenance (no oil changes, transmission fluid changes, reduced wear on brakes)
These were my reasons as well. So far I am not disappointed. I have my issues but I am very happy with my decision.
Post automatically merged:

What happened to hydrogen cars? They use combustion engines but with zero emissions. if I recall about 10 years ago they were starting to make them and some pretty decent progress until Our little friend Elon Musk and his beautiful lovely Tesla ruined that program. If Tesla showed us anything it showed us that if you want to fast track a different technology all you need is the federal government to highly incentivize it.
I think @STS-134 did a great job of explaining the technical side of this question but there is also the free market side. As you noted, people have been working on fuel cell cars for some time now and there are also plenty of examples of natural gas vehicles too, but hydrogel fuel cell has promise. It's lack of progress most certainly has little to do with Tesla or the government. Our free market has driven everything in this direction. Auto manufacturers, oil and gas companies, who receive far more financial subsidies and assistance from the government than the EV market, were and are making far too much money under the status quo to push fuel cells or anything else for that matter. They don't even want to invest in EVs. There's just little financial incentive as they have a monopoly. That same free market allowed a company such as Tesla to revolutionize the EV car and market. Now auto makers have noticed and are trying to get on board though cautiously. If another technology such as fuel cell can mature that would be great too. I would love to have options.
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
10,146
Reaction score
11,038
Location
Saratoga, CA
But for your 9.7 GW you had to spread it across 24 hours. When vehicles are at work places or shopping, or whatever, during the day, I suspect few will be charging. That was why I came up with 20 GW during 10 nighttime hours. Also I appear to have used a higher consumption rate, but that is fine, I was working off rough numbers as an estimate.
Actually, I think most charging in the future will be done during the day, at work. The reason is that there's a glut of generation capacity during the day. So much in fact that the California ISO must curtail some of the supply; in April this year, they had to curtail over 300,000 MWh of renewable generation capacity. Averaged over an entire month, that's like "wasting" between 400 and 500 megawatts of power. That's not much compared to the grid load of between 20,000 and 45,000 megawatts but there's clearly a glut of supply during the day and it will get larger and larger as more people install solar and more wind turbines get built, because the sun only shines during the day and the wind blows primarily during the day since wind is caused by temperature gradients from the Sun.

When power is generated, there's really three things you can do with it:
1. Use it
2. Store it, and feed it back into the grid later
3. Curtail it

(3) is obviously not desirable. (2) will always have some energy losses associated with it; one of the best ways to do this is to pump water uphill and then generate electricity with a turbine later on. (1) is the most desirable but if there's insufficient demand, and insufficient storage, then you end up curtailing.

This capacity glut has already started to affect the electricity market. For the new residential plans, the "off peak" period already extends all day until 5pm, with peak period consisting of the hours between 5pm and 8pm only. And PG&E recently rolled out a new business electric vehicle plan that has a "super off peak" rate between 9am and 2pm. Of course, you'd rather have people use the electricity at the time it's generated so you don't have to store it; that's exactly what this plan is incentivizing people to do: use the electricity to charge at work, when solar and wind are at their maximum but before air conditioners are using the bulk of the electricity. The state at some point will probably step in and push employers to provide vehicle charging through either mandates or tax breaks, to make sure that everyone has access to an EVSE while they're at work. Eventually, I'm sure they will also roll out a residential plan that encourages people to charge at home between 9am and 2pm as well.

And as I previously mentioned, some EVs will be able to do (2), if it's really needed, by feeding energy back into the grid at prices higher than what you paid to charge. During the rolling blackouts last month I was monitoring the real time pricing of incremental electricity (NOT the day ahead which is the default selected on that page) and it reached $1000/MWh ($1/kWh). If I could have used my PHEV to put energy back into the grid at that point I absolutely would have done so, as I'd make about a 300% profit selling it back to the grid when it's desperately needed. On a large scale, once real time pricing becomes a reality, I don't think there will ever be supply/demand mismatch issues again. They'll just keep raising the (real time) price of electricity to both reduce demand and encourage people to supply it until both are in balance, and market forces will keep the two in balance at all times. The problem with the electricity market right now is that it's not a free market, and utilities are only allowed to vary pricing by time of day and day of the week (but not weather or any other factors that can affect demand), under the assumption that a real-time market would be too confusing for consumers to understand. But if I were offered a real time pricing plan that forces me to pay more on the highest demand days in exchange for say 20-30% lower rates at all other times, I'd probably take it. All they'd have to do is give me some sort of display that I can use that shows the current and next hour's price per kWh so that I can decide if I want to be a user or supplier of electricity and how much I want to be using or supplying. Of course on a very hot day, I might be using 6 kW just to keep my house cool. But if prices were extremely high, I'd try to offset some of that usage with my EV feeding power into my main panel to avoid taking 100% of it from the grid at high prices...and that's exactly the point. When this happens on a large scale, effective demand for electricity is reduced through price incentives.

I was in this situation. My panel is at the opposite side of the house. Fortunately I did not have to upgrade it and my basement is unfinished which made pulling the wire a lot easier. I had a Tesla wall changer installed which maxes at 80a. It charges at roughly 50mi of range per hr. I had a 100amp breaker installed to give me a little more room for whatever comes in the future or if I get a second changer for another car. The state gave me a small rebate that covered the cost of the charger and then a little more but it was still expensive. I could have done it cheaper by moving the circuit installed and not used in our laundry room for an electric dryer which is right by the garage but I thought this was going to be better for future capacity. Worked out well.
I highly doubt that dryer circuit could handle 80A. You would have had to run a new wire anyway.
 
Last edited:

doubledge

PSL?
Intermediate User
Joined
May 14, 2019
Messages
956
Reaction score
1,058
I agree with you, but look at what government is already mandating in regards to fuel economy. My guess, this will not be successfully challenged in court.
I agree. The issue is that no one else is providing any other alternative for a more efficient technology other than EVs. So even though they are not mandating you drive an EV you are currently not left with other viable choices. Of course the same can be said the other way around. If you didn't want to drive an ICE car what was the alternative? Very possibly in that time we could see fuel cell technology come to market but we will have to have someone who willing to invest in it like EV makers such as Tesla are pursuing that market.
Post automatically merged:

I highly doubt that dryer circuit could handle 80A. You would have had to run a new wire anyway.
Of course not, my point was I could have just dealt with the lower power circuit that was closer. Would have just installed the outlet in the garage and it would have been a lot cheaper.
Post automatically merged:

3) Low maintenance (no oil changes, transmission fluid changes, reduced wear on brakes)
My Tesla has cost me exactly $437.50 in maintenance over the last 3 years. That includes everything except tires. Costs me about $40 a month to charge.
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
10,146
Reaction score
11,038
Location
Saratoga, CA
I agree with you, but look at what government is already mandating in regards to fuel economy. My guess, this will not be successfully challenged in court.
I agree. The issue is that no one else is providing any other alternative for a more efficient technology other than EVs. So even though they are not mandating you drive an EV you are currently not left with other viable choices. Of course the same can be said the other way around. If you didn't want to drive an ICE car what was the alternative? Very possibly in that time we could see fuel cell technology come to market but we will have to have someone who willing to invest in it like EV makers such as Tesla are pursuing that market.

Well you could just do it the old fashioned way (and this is something that will definitely hold up in court, since we already do it): tax gasoline virtually out of existence. BEVs are already cheaper to fuel than ICE cars:
My Tesla has cost me exactly $437.50 in maintenance over the last 3 years. That includes everything except tires. Costs me about $40 a month to charge.

The ICE car has one current advantage and that is fast refueling, and that advantage will mostly be going away in the next 15 years as DC fast charging gets even faster and DCFC stations become more ubiquitous. An additional 30-50% tax on gasoline would easily push the vast majority of people to drive something else based on economics alone. Whether politicians will ever have the balls to do it, given the amount of lobbying money they get from oil companies, I'm not sure, but I'd argue that gasoline right now isn't taxed enough. Pushing the costs of using the stuff to your children and grandchildren isn't exactly sustainable, and even if we get new extraction technology, all of the oil will likely run out in less than 1000 years anyway if we keep using it at the current rate. So once we come up with a better way to do things, we should encourage it by putting a tax on the old way of doing things and giving people incentives for the new way.
 

CobawLT2010

Land of the quarantined, home of the afraid.
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
5,054
Location
Wuhan, China
As I said, I think by the time 2035 rolls around, this will be mostly a symbolic piece of legislation. Hardly anyone will want a gasoline powered car for economic and performance reasons alone. Americans love cars that zip from 0-60 in a short amount of time, and just look at stuff like the Tesla Model 3: even the single motor standard range model will do 0-60 in 5.3s. The dual motor long range mode, 4.4s, and the performance model, 3.2s. And the top of the line model costs just $55k (and that's without any tax breaks or incentives because Tesla sold too many cars and that program has ended for them).


I don't think that was ever the plan for hydrogen.

Combustion engines are horribly inefficient, in general. Well okay, they don't have to be, but the most efficient type of combustion engine that uses an ideal gas as a working fluid is the Carnot engine, whose operation consists of four stages: (1) isothermal expansion; (2) adiabatic expansion; (3) isothermal compression; and (4) adiabatic compression. Carnot engines operate between a "hot" reservoir (call it Th) and a "cold" reservoir (call it Tc) and in order to be a Carnot engine, the engine must exhaust waste gas to the "cold" reservoir at whatever its ambient temperature is, in order words, if it's 75°F outside, the temperature of the exhaust coming out of your tailpipe better be exactly 75°F, otherwise there's still energy in the gas that's being wasted. That's why the isothermal expansion must extract enough energy from the gas until the point where the adiabatic expansion lowers the temperature from Th to Tc, in other words, to the temperature of the outdoor environment. And there are two issues with that. First is that it's not actually possible to hit Carnot efficiency in a real engine, but second is that isothermal expansion and compression take a long time. The cylinder of the engine must sit there and sloooooowly allow the gas to expand, or very slowly compress it, such that it can't run very many expansion/compression cycles in that cylinder, so your engine is going to produce very little power for its displacement. Manufacturers love to tout how many HP/L of displacement their engines have and an efficient combustion engine is basically the complete opposite of that. Furthermore, a very efficient engine would be heavy, and it would take a lot of extra fuel to move that extra mass. So real heat engines basically use adiabatic compression and expansion only, since there is insufficient time for heat transfer, at the cost of efficiency, and open the exhaust valves while the working fluid is still quite hot so that they can run another combustion cycle in the same cylinder. Typical car engines are about 25-35% efficient in converting the energy in fuel to useful work; the highest efficiency I have ever seen in a car ICE is somewhere around 45% (from Toyota).

But then there's fuel cells, where the worst ones are about 40% efficient and the good ones are about 60% efficient (you can get efficiencies up to around 80% with cogeneration, assuming you actually have a use for the waste heat). So if you're going to use hydrogen as a fuel, a fuel cell is definitely the way to go. You also have no moving parts in the source of your power, and most of the rest of the advantages of an EV, just with a different source of electricity. Should be interesting to see what happens and I think the one big hurdle is the energy density of the fuel. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles like the Mirai have to store the hydrogen as a supercritical fluid at almost 700 atmospheres of pressure (around 10,000 PSI) in order to get any amount of decent range.

But the biggest barrier to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles right now is economic. Hydrogen currently costs around $16/kg and a fuel cell vehicle gets around 60-70 miles/kg and so this vehicle would cost around 23-26 ¢/mile to operate (from fuel costs alone). If you're comparing against a vehicle that gets around 40 mpg (which is a fair comparison in the case of the Mirai which does around 65 miles/kg), then that's equivalent to paying around $10/gallon of gas. The problem is although the fuel cells themselves are very efficient, the process of producing, compressing, and transporting hydrogen uses a lot of energy and all of those costs get factored into the final cost of the product you're purchasing and lower the efficiency of the entire process overall. Electricity is actually expensive to transport too (you have to build transmission lines), but we know how to do it very efficiently (without losing too much energy in the process), we've been doing it for years, and more importantly, the infrastructure to do this is already built.

View attachment 160250

And as far as burning hydrogen in a traditional combustion engine? Knock off another 10-15% or so in the overall efficiency rate, and increase costs accordingly, and you can see why no one wants to do that. Even with fuel cells, the economics don't make sense right now, it's more early adopters just wanting something cool to drive. They're going to have to get the costs of hydrogen way down in order to compete with BEVs, which can cost as little as 5¢/mile to drive (compare to gasoline, at 8-15¢/mile and FCVs at around 25¢/mile).
Post automatically merged:


For what it's worth, the next car I buy will likely be a Tesla Model 3 or Model Y, and government incentives or pressure has absolutely nothing to do with it. The primary reasons for this are:
1) Ability to refuel it in my garage without ever having to go to a refueling station
2) Performance
3) Low maintenance (no oil changes, transmission fluid changes, reduced wear on brakes)

Oh, and my wife wants it. Which is probably the #1 reason, but there are plenty of reasons to get one in addition to that. I just don't want to do maintenance on two cars with ICEs in them. Last time I changed the oil in my PHEV, I was annoyed because I had to remove 10 clips/bolts just to remove the panel to get to the drain plug, and then when I pulled the drain plug, I had the drain pan slightly out of position and oil spilled onto the floor.

As I've said several times in this thread, I think this move is going to end up being mostly symbolic, and economics will be driving this transition ahead of it. The fuel cell vs. battery car thing is going to be the next big automotive tech war if the price of hydrogen comes down far enough, but the drivetrains of these vehicles are going to be shared (electrical wires connected to 4 independent motors) regardless of where the electricity is coming from. My personal guess is that once we get 1 megawatt or faster DC fast charging (which equates to about 65-70 miles of range added per minute), that'll be fast enough for most people and fuel cell vehicles will become a niche market. Tesla V3 superchargers already operate at up to 250 kW and the CCS spec now allows for up to 350 kW. If you put the charging stations at fast food restaurants and coffee shops, you might even get away with charge rates as low as 400-500 kW (would you rather stand at a gas pump for 3 minutes, then run into the restroom for 3 minutes, then go buy a drink at the convenience store for 3 minutes, or connect a charger and go inside and get a coffee for 10 minutes, if you get 350 miles of range after both activities?). Economics will then drive people to recover the land currently used by gas stations (especially in big cities where land is valuable) and use it for something else.

I think the big thing you’re not seeing in my view is hydrogen = long haul vehicles... batteries are just a stop gap... we should just forego the stop gap... I’d gladly buy a Toyota Marai or lease for my wife if that’s all they’d allow like they currently do... but in my state it’s not an option... I’ve often thought about converting one of my cars to CNG since I’m close to a refueling station.

Many people don’t care about 0-60 when it comes to their daily driver... I care more about comfort but since there are NO comfortable cars any more due to all the auto journalists pushing their agenda they make everyone think that we want 0-60 in less than 3 seconds and we want a car that goes 155 mph... I want neither of those in a daily driver and neither should you since the last time I checked the highest limit in America is currently 85.

How long is your daily commute? If it was like mine you’d be lusting at the old Lincoln continentals and caddie lack broughams of yesteryears...

At recent car get togethers I have talked with other people who share my desire for big and comfortable rather than what has been pushed by these publications telling the auto manufacturers to create. Why do you think big SUV’s and Trucks reign supreme... because the crumbling infrastructure of America is showing through... the bump stops and suspensions on modern cars are too hard...
 
Last edited:

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
90,186
Messages
1,372,146
Members
22,692
Latest member
crispy15
Top