Ontario needs to invest in EVs as a realistic Option.

[Boges]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

All you're saying there is what i said - not entirely practical now, almost certainly will eventually evolve into tech that is entirely practical.    We're all waiting with fingers crossed hope it's soon, but it isn't right now just yet.

And we can mention areas where they are getting closer to replacing ICE capabilities. Like having more DC Fast chargers along highways so road trips are more practical. 

It's funny I stopped to charge my EV at 10% at the busy Enroute, by the time we all went to bathroom, waiting for our lunch, ate our lunch, and went to the bathroom again, the charge was at 92%. 

This is generally how roadtrips work for people. 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Boges said:

And we can mention areas where they are getting closer to replacing ICE capabilities. Like having more DC Fast chargers along highways so road trips are more practical. 

But still miles and miles away from being remotely close to the same.  If something is 100 percent terrible and you move it to 85 percent terrible, that's a pretty significant improvement.  But it's still mostly terrible.

The current tech simply is not there to make it "good".  THat day will come - it's not here yet.

11 minutes ago, Boges said:

It's funny I stopped to charge my EV at 10% at the busy Enroute, by the time we all went to bathroom, waiting for our lunch, ate our lunch, and went to the bathroom again, the charge was at 92%. 

Not sure how that's "funny'?  Unless you mean 'haha that sucks -  I  stopped to fuel my vehicle the other day and woudln't have had time to make it inside to buy a candy bar before it was filled. "  kind of funny. 

Basically what you just said was "i stopped to refill my car and had to wait 45 mins for it to be mostly charged."   Yeah.  I know.  That's the problem.   Call me when you get it down to 3 minutes from flat to full    That's about where i am now  

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But still miles and miles away from being remotely close to the same.  If something is 100 percent terrible and you move it to 85 percent terrible, that's a pretty significant improvement.  But it's still mostly terrible.

The current tech simply is not there to make it "good".  THat day will come - it's not here yet.

Only if that's the only metric you use to decide to get an EV. It has to be the exact same experience as an EV, if not, I don't want it. Forget that charging at home is way better if you can do it. Forget that EVs are way better when it comes to maintenance and fuel cost. Forget that EVs are usually faster and more fun to drive.  

[CdnFox]

Just now, Boges said:

Only if that's the only metric you use to decide to get an EV.

No, that's a fact regardless of your reasoning.  If you decide that you ahve OTHER reasons and can work around that then fine but what it means is that it is not a practical replacement for ICE,  it's just something a few people can make use of that they prefer.

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, Boges said:

The solution would be more Stage 2 chargers available everywhere so when people go places they can charge when they do their tasks. DC Fast chargers should only be required on Road-Trips. 

My solution should be implemented and would solve all these problems in one master-stroke. Rather than charging the battery yourself, you drive to a battery replacement depot. These are designed to be automated, so you roll in and stop. A mechanism removes your battery and installs a new one that is fully charged. Then off you go. Presto-changeo.

The batteries are pre-charged and this is done at a proper charging facility. Can be done on-site at the depot, provided they have the power capability. This doesn't require the whole electrical infrastructure to be changed. All they need is a small modular reactor on-site.

Now the batteries can be charged at the proper rate, at the proper temperature and be allowed to cool down after charging. Their performance will be improved, and the time it takes to get your EV back on the road will be minimal as opposed to two hours with an overheated battery.

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, that's a fact regardless of your reasoning.  If you decide that you ahve OTHER reasons and can work around that then fine but what it means is that it is not a practical replacement for ICE,  it's just something a few people can make use of that they prefer.

I think most people have more practical objections that simply "If it's not like an ICE, I don't want it". 

Much of it has to do with price and a lack of understanding on how EV chargeting works. 

https://blinkcharging.com/fact-from-fiction-the-real-reason-why-consumers-dont-buy-electric-vehicles/#:~:text=The most common reasons drivers,initial higher upfront vehicle costs.

With the price of any new car today, the price argument to not getting an EV is slowly going away. 

[Boges]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

My solution should be implemented and would solve all these problems in one master-stroke. Rather than charging the battery yourself, you drive to a battery replacement depot. These are designed to be automated, so you roll in and stop. A mechanism removes your battery and installs a new one that is fully charged. Then off you go. Presto-changeo.

The batteries are pre-charged and this is done at a proper charging facility. Can be done on-site at the depot, provided they have the power capability. This doesn't require the whole electrical infrastructure to be changed. All they need is a small modular reactor on-site.

Now the batteries can be charged at the proper rate, at the proper temperature and be allowed to cool down after charging. Their performance will be improved, and the time it takes to get your EV back on the road will be minimal as opposed to two hours with an overheated battery.

This speaks to my propane tank comment earlier. It's still only a solution when normal charging isn't an option. Road Trips etc. 

Being able to properly charge overnight, at like 30 amps, is still the preferable option. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

 Can be done on-site at the depot, provided they have the power capability. This doesn't require the whole electrical infrastructure to be changed. All they need is a small modular reactor on-site.

hook... line.... YONK!  RREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

A new tech will appear in the next 10 - 15 years that will finally make complete sense and people will naturally move to it. Maybe radical advancements in energy storage or some sort of on board generating capacity or the like, i don't know.

Yep. These problems will no longer be an issue when we invent transporter beams.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yep. These problems will no longer be an issue when we invent transporter beams.

You have no idea how much i wish...  

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You have no idea how much i wish...  

I'm for bringing back the horse.  

But hey, never mind the bollocks. Let's look at the numbers a bit more here. Article describes the charging problem.

Ford F-150 Lightning Driver’s Terrible Charging Experience

Monacelli talked about how slow home charging is. He appeared to have plugged in the F-150 Lightning at a regular 120V socket, which would take over two days for a full top-up. It’s not surprising, because Ford has mentioned in its charging installation guide that a regular home socket would charge at 3 miles per hour.

A proper AC wall charger, like the 48 amp Ford Connected Charge Stationadds about 20 miles range per hour on the F-150 Lightning's Extended Range variant and 19 miles range per hour on the Standard Range. It would then take 16 hours to charge the former, at least on paper. The 19.2-kilowatt Ford Charge Station Pro is much faster, adding 30 miles range per hour.

Sounds like this sucker spends way more time charging, than driving.

Even the 48 ampere home station takes a nominal 16 hours to charge, albeit yes it's an EV truck.

This is 10 kW, roughly equivalent to running two laundry driers for 16 hours.

That gives you an idea of the power needed. It will require power equivalent to a Bruce Darlington or Pickering power station.

So, better start building right away. Good luck wit dat, yous guys.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I'm for bringing back the horse

Naaaaaaaaaayy

(dont look at me like that - SOMEONE was going to say it... )

20 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

But hey, never mind the bollocks. Let's look at the numbers a bit more here. Article describes the charging problem.

Yeah.  Well there it is.

The tech is coming - it's just not there yet to be a viable wide scale replacement for ICE.

[ExFlyer]

19 hours ago, Boges said:

And we can mention areas where they are getting closer to replacing ICE capabilities. Like having more DC Fast chargers along highways so road trips are more practical. 

It's funny I stopped to charge my EV at 10% at the busy Enroute, by the time we all went to bathroom, waiting for our lunch, ate our lunch, and went to the bathroom again, the charge was at 92%. 

This is generally how roadtrips work for people. 

How much did that cost??

[Boges]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

How much did that cost??

About $25. 

[OftenWrong]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it's just not there yet to be a viable wide scale replacement for ICE.

And some industry pundits are saying it never will be. It's fine to play with your gadget toy as long as there aren't too many of these energy hogs at the trough all at once!

oink oink!

 

[Boges]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I'm for bringing back the horse.  

But hey, never mind the bollocks. Let's look at the numbers a bit more here. Article describes the charging problem.

Ford F-150 Lightning Driver’s Terrible Charging Experience

Monacelli talked about how slow home charging is. He appeared to have plugged in the F-150 Lightning at a regular 120V socket, which would take over two days for a full top-up. It’s not surprising, because Ford has mentioned in its charging installation guide that a regular home socket would charge at 3 miles per hour.

A proper AC wall charger, like the 48 amp Ford Connected Charge Stationadds about 20 miles range per hour on the F-150 Lightning's Extended Range variant and 19 miles range per hour on the Standard Range. It would then take 16 hours to charge the former, at least on paper. The 19.2-kilowatt Ford Charge Station Pro is much faster, adding 30 miles range per hour.

Sounds like this sucker spends way more time charging, than driving.

Even the 48 ampere home station takes a nominal 16 hours to charge, albeit yes it's an EV truck.

This is 10 kW, roughly equivalent to running two laundry driers for 16 hours.

That gives you an idea of the power needed. It will require power equivalent to a Bruce Darlington or Pickering power station.

So, better start building right away. Good luck wit dat, yous guys.

The article doesn't say how many kHW the Ford F150 Lighting's battery size it. Google says it's 131 kwh. That's insane! That's a gigantic battery and nowhere near emblematic of a typical EV. Just like a pickup truck isn't particularly representative of an average car. 

Your typical Stage 2 30 amp charger does about 7 kwh. So yeah that battery would take a long time. Close to 20 hours.

That being said, the range is around 400-450 kms for that truck. So a battery that size gets what resembles a normal range for a car. So for daily use, charging it to 100% may not be essential. 

If I needed a pickup truck, I probably wouldn't buy that car. But many EVs are far more practical. 

FYI, I have an EV battery that's under 40 kwh and it charges in under 6 hours. 

Just for comparison's sake, a Tesla Model Y has a battery of size that goes from 60-78 kwh. 
The Ford Mach E's battery is between 70-90 kwh. 
The Hyundai Ioniq 5's battery is between 58-77 kwh. 

Divide those numbers by 7 to get how many hours it would take to charge the battery to full on a standard home charger. 

 

Just now, OftenWrong said:

And some industry pundits are saying it never will be. It's fine to play with your gadget toy as long as there aren't too many of these energy hogs at the trough all at once!

oink oink!

 

As opposed to all those people using their AC? 

One night I had my dryer, AC, Washing machine and car charger all going at the same time. I still rarely get a Hydro Bill of over $150/month. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

And some industry pundits are saying it never will be. It's fine to play with your gadget toy as long as there aren't too many of these energy hogs at the trough all at once!

oink oink!

 

I think it'll get there. The battery problem is about the biggest and they're working on very impressive solutions for that, they'll crack it eventually.  lighter higher capacity batteries that can be charged radically quicker (like 10 times faster) are already on the drawing boards out there, and they'll eventually crack the tech.  That elimiates SO many problems - "Gas" stations become viable again where you stop for 5 or 10 mins and you're powered up for the next 700 k or so, which means we don't have to re-do the power grid to every single building and home. 

[OftenWrong]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think it'll get there. The battery problem is about the biggest and they're working on very impressive solutions for that, they'll crack it eventually.  lighter higher capacity batteries that can be charged radically quicker (like 10 times faster) are already on the drawing boards out there, and they'll eventually crack the tech.  That elimiates SO many problems - "Gas" stations become viable again where you stop for 5 or 10 mins and you're powered up for the next 700 k or so, which means we don't have to re-do the power grid to every single building and home. 

I wouldn't bet on it. There's a lot of promises for pie in the sky in research. That's how they get more funding, part of the game.

If you need a battery that yields 130 kWh, you still have to put that amount of energy back in during a recharge. Actually more than that, since it is never 100% efficient. But even so, the time it takes to deliver 130 kwh to the batt is limited by the amount of electrical power available at the charger. Assumin house voltage and amperage, lets go with 220v 50A. This is about 10 kW. Would take 13 hours. Note that's as much as having your house current at full load, every circuit running including stove and A/C, for 13 hours. And that's assuming 100% efficiency. It will take longer than this, and progressively longer as the battery ages. Same as cell phone tech, but on steroids. 

Yeah right Mr. Spock. Get the transporter started up.

I'm placing my bets on cold fusion, myself.  

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

If I needed a pickup truck, I probably wouldn't buy that car. But many EVs are far more practical. 

I see. We need to down-scale our expectations is what you mean to say. 

Some people do need to drive trucks, Boges. Not everyone can use the mickey-mouse wind up toy you are driving.  

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

 Some people do need to drive trucks, Boges. Not everyone can use the mickey-mouse wind up toy you are driving.  

Sure and I'm sure an $80,000 Pickup truck that cost $150 to fill up is the far more practical option. 

But for the many people on Earth that simply need a car to go to A to B, a more modest EV is perfect fine. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

I wouldn't bet on it. There's a lot of promises for pie in the sky in research. That's how they get more funding, part of the game.

If you need a battery that yields 130 kWh, you still have to put that amount of energy back in during a recharge. Actually more than that, since it is never 100% efficient. But even so, the time it takes to deliver 130 kwh to the batt is limited by the amount of electrical power available at the charger. Assumin house voltage and amperage, lets go with 220v 50A. This is about 10 kW. Would take 13 hours. Note that's as much as having your house current at full load, every circuit running including stove and A/C, for 13 hours. And that's assuming 100% efficiency. It will take longer than this, and progressively longer as the battery ages. Same as cell phone tech, but on steroids. 

Yeah right Mr. Spock. Get the transporter started up.

I'm placing my bets on cold fusion, myself.  

The point is if you could put that power into that battery at a higher rate you woudln't need to have it in the home.  We don't store fuel for our cars in the home right?

The problem right now is that no current battery can be charged that fast.  They blow up. And of course you'll melt the electrics trying to run that much power through even if you could.

But tech like quantum charging and such could eliminate that problem and what takes 40 minutes now could go down to more like 4.  So now we're back to 'power' stations (instead of gas stations) and life would look very much like it does now. Especially if that battery tech could allow for super 'capacitor' storage so we don't have to run enough power to charge at full blast to the charge station.

It's a ways off.  But whether it's that tech or something else i'm pretty sure they'll crack the energy problem eventually.  But - not today  

[Boges]

30 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I wouldn't bet on it. There's a lot of promises for pie in the sky in research. That's how they get more funding, part of the game.

If you need a battery that yields 130 kWh, you still have to put that amount of energy back in during a recharge. Actually more than that, since it is never 100% efficient. But even so, the time it takes to deliver 130 kwh to the batt is limited by the amount of electrical power available at the charger. Assumin house voltage and amperage, lets go with 220v 50A. This is about 10 kW. Would take 13 hours. Note that's as much as having your house current at full load, every circuit running including stove and A/C, for 13 hours. And that's assuming 100% efficiency. It will take longer than this, and progressively longer as the battery ages. Same as cell phone tech, but on steroids. 

Yeah right Mr. Spock. Get the transporter started up.

I'm placing my bets on cold fusion, myself.  

I like how your scenario uses the biggest battery available. As mentioned, I've had a 30 amp EV charge running at the same time as my AC, Dryer and Dishwasher. They're all on different circuits. 

And I live in a townhouse. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

I like how your scenario uses the biggest battery available. As mentioned, I've had a 30 amp EV charge running at the same time as my AC, Dryer and Dishwasher. They're all on different circuits. 

And I live in a townhouse. 

I have a dozen reports about townhouses on my desk right now. Not ONE of them - not one - even comes close to having the capacity to provide for everyone to have a cat 2 charger.  Not even close.

So if you're telling me that your townhouse has the capacity for everyone to have a charger and run their dryer and stove all at the same time - i'll call you a liar to your face right this second. And if you're trying to just say ONE person could pull it off when we're talking about everyone switching to EV's then you're being dishonest.

If you have to lie to make your point - you don't have a point.

[Boges]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I have a dozen reports about townhouses on my desk right now. Not ONE of them - not one - even comes close to having the capacity to provide for everyone to have a cat 2 charger.  Not even close.

So if you're telling me that your townhouse has the capacity for everyone to have a charger and run their dryer and stove all at the same time - i'll call you a liar to your face right this second. And if you're trying to just say ONE person could pull it off when we're talking about everyone switching to EV's then you're being dishonest.

If you have to lie to make your point - you don't have a point.

It's all conjecture. Would they collapse the grid if they were used at night? 

I'm not sure. I know that I'm not seeing the kind of hydro bills a Grow Op would see. Sure it's more, but not a LOT more. 

Grids most certainly will have to expand if we're going to electrify. That's just a reality. 

I'd like to know how we eventually plan to move from Natural Gas furnaces to Heat Pumps. Because that's also gotta be on government's radars. That would be more of an impetus to upgrade the grid than EVs. 

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, Boges said:

It's all conjecture. Would they collapse the grid if they were used at night? 

Yes.  Yes they would. The grid would overload and either the breakers would shut the complex down or if it wasn't up to snuff we'd get a fire.

It's not conjecture.  Electricity is not theoretical. Capacity can be measured and calculated. This is science.

Up to now your arguments have been based in reason and logic - don't blow it at this point.

There is NO universe where we are able to provide full service for charging without a massive massive massive upgrading of buildings and the infrastructure to get to buildings. That is a cast iron fact.  I doubt we could provide for half the capacity.

If the tech evolves so that we could charge cars more or less the same as we fill them with gas (roughly same time and effort i mean) then a lot of that goes away - we don't need extra power to the homes, we just need to run it to 'power' stations (instead of gas stations) and that would be a tiny fraction of the effort. And then it would be useable and a realistic replacement for ICE.