On 5 Nov 2023 at 8:49, Thos True via EV wrote: > I find it difficult to believe that we are once again being drawn into > the argument that the grid cannot support the demand for EV's ... Most > vehicles use around the same amount of electricity per charge as > running a dryer for a couple of cycles (how many people think twice > about doing that?).
I'm not an engineer, but I suspect that the main concern isn't so much the total energy used as the peak load. Imagine a motorway charging site with just 6 kiosks good for 350kW each. At some point all 6 would be going flat out, for a demand of 2.1 mW. Seems kind of brisk, especially since it's likely to hit during the day, when electrical demand is already high. OTOH I don't see a major problem with home charging. It's relatively modest power, on average around 7kW at my meter, though folks here who have 3-phase power can nudge 22kW with home charging. It's also usually at night, when powerplants have excess capacity anyway. In fact back in the 1970s some US utilities said they welcomed [the idea of] EVs as a way to make some money from those night-idling generators. But as I said, I'm no engineer. I didn't watch the clip in the OP - sorry, I don't have the patience - but there is not now nor has there ever been any shortage of FUD around EVs. Whether you're an investor/owner filthy rich from greasy oil, or a media exec looking for clickbait, it's (alas) not that tough to find a pseudo- expert who will find - or make up - the right data to give you the anti-EV news release that you crave. I'm thinking here of an infamous NY Times EV hit piece from 1995. It was based on a Carnegie-Mellon study which claimed that because of lead in batteries EVs would be an Environmental Disaster Beyond Anyone's Worst Nightmares (tm). If you're an EV list old-timer, you may remember this one. The study was promptly debunked, but the damage was done. Nobody paid attention to the facts. The C-M lead study gave EV boosters headaches for years. Even today this rubbish paper still gets cited now and then. And it *was* rubbish. It was based on bogus data, including some that the "researchers" literally made up (their "best estimates"). If you want the whole sordid tale, look here: http://evdl.org/pages/carnegie_lead.html There are and will be more like it. They can't seem to help themselves. It's the agenda. David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it. Use my offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders. -- Hal Abelson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = _______________________________________________ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
