Tesla has been FAKING range estimates

May be so for general public. But for EV buyers/owners, they should know, since it is most of the cost of an EV. Anyway, the EV buyers/owners are complaining, not the general public.

That is, simply, not true. The nation's power grid was not designed to accommodate millions of L2 chargers as I already pointed out in a previous post. Peppering a neighborhood with a platoon of L2 chargers can imbalance that part of the grid. Here are the IEEE articles yet again:

Against my better judgement I will discuss this with you. But as soon as you start getting offensive and not discussing the facts, I will no longer respond.

From the first link, “There are places even today [in the city] where we can’t even take one more heat pump without having to rebuild the portion of the [electrical distribution] system. Or we can’t even have one EV charger go in.” and immediately after that, "Peak loading is the primary concern."

These two statements do not necessarily go together. The first statement is from Tomm Marshall, assistant director of utilities. He talks as if charging BEVs is exactly the same as adding another heat pump. Well, that may be true in terms of the way they treat such devices in the code. But, there's no reason for that.

BEVs have a great deal of flexibility in *when* they are charged. A very large majority of BEVs come home each day, only needing a few kWh of charge being added. The average daily drive in the US is around 40 miles, which is 10 kWh in most BEVs. That can be done from a 120V, 15A outlet overnight, presenting virtually an unnoticed additional load. The only upgrade to anything is the use of the charging timers already available in most BEVs and the federal mandate they be included in all new BEVs. Problem solved!

The second statement is dealt with by the same means. No charging at peak use times, only at off peak times. Problem solved.

This article also reports that the distribution transformers would need to be upgraded. This is an issue I've wondered about. Where I am, there can be high demand on cold nights. That's strictly an issue for the local distribution in residential neighborhoods. But, using the numbers above, an extra 10 kWh from each home would barely be noticed against the backdrop of 3 to 5 kW heatpumps running all night, especially when this is still well below the daytime use.

I fully expect the local utilities to pull excuses to upgrade the local distribution grid. This is their turf. These companies are regulated, and their profits are set, in part, by the amount of capital invested. So, they love to bump that up, especially when they can get someone else to pay for it, like the government or the local customers.

Don't be as gullible as the utilities want you to be. BEV charging will be done mostly at night with very little impact on the grid, local or regional. It won't require any additional generation or transmission. BEV charging can be done largely by more fully using the facilities we already have.

He didn't say they went together, but they might. A friend of mine lives in Palo Alto and they wanted to put in another heat pump. This required an electrical upgrade that took over a YEAR to get approved. The same would go for an L2 charger.

This is the irony of the situation. That over-night low cost power is being generated by COAL FIRED plants because they are the cheapest. As there is a shift from coal to solar that cheap nighttime power will vanish and be shifted to the daytime. This means charging during the day at work.

You are just moving peak times to nighttime. And this does not address the imbalancing of the grid by millions of L2 chargers. There just is no free lunch.

In contrast, shifting to daytime charging would minimize the impact of EVs on the grid. “Right now, we have a lot of power available in the evening,” says study senior author Ram Rajagopal, an electrical engineer at Stanford University. “However, when we look at 2035, the grid is predominantly solar.”

By changing the emphasis of charging toward the daytime, “we don’t really have to add any resources to the grid,” Rajagopal says. “We’re not saying that everyone should move to daytime charging. We think the emphasis should be a more balanced approach, more tilted toward daytime charging.”

You can expect whatever you want, but the utilities are the experts at what it will take to deliver the goods. Calif. ignored their advice and has suffered rolling blackouts as a consequence. I will trust an electrical engineer a 1000 times more than a politician.

I am just presenting the facts. Platitudes will not erase them.

And that is exactly the point. The code is what needs to be modified, not the grid. Did you not follow the reasoning?

A shift from coal to solar is only in your mind. The people who are responsible for planning these things actually understand the issues, which is not something you can say. The excess nighttime capacity, would be whatever it is they shut down from the day. Mostly that is gas based, because it can be spun up and down quickly, something that coal is less capable of.

Dear God. I don't know why you can't understand something so simple. If the millions of L2 chargers operate at night, when loads are low and lots of excess generating capacity is available, the L2 chargers require no additional capacity in either generation or transmission.

Not sure what is meant by "evening". The California peak times extend until 9 or 10 pm.

Daytime charging is useful to make full use of solar generated power, but it's not necessary, because there is so much excess generation at night. Using excess solar generation during the day is fine when available.

Utilities have agendas. I would hope you understand that.

Actually, you seem to be ignoring most of the facts, especially that BEVs can be charged at night, without any additional generation, or transmission. Yet you continue to debate what is important. Do you agree with the fact, that BEVs can be charged at night without adding generation or transmission to the grid?

If you do not, you are disputing a fact. If you do agree, then we don't need to discuss anything else.

Sewage Sweeper doesn't know what words mean, even if he does know what he'd like them to mean. "Faked" implies deliberately using false information. "Optmistic" just implies assuming that the drive will chose a driving style that optimises range. By the time the battery is half-empty, the car has a better idea of the driving style that the driver has adopted for the particular route being driven

You can't influence the strength of the wood and steel in your house by varying your living style. You might be an exception - if you get your neighbours cross enough they can burn your house down.

It's more a realistic appreciation that customers can be unrealistic about rang estimates.

Would anybody want to talk to you about the subject?

What you want them to understand is "gallons", not "miles". In Australia they understand litres and kilometres.

Put people into electric cars and they get to understand klloWatt.hours very rapidly. You might be an exception.

All that they say is that the US power grid need work to bring it up to the state where it can cope with a lot of EVs.

That's going to cost money, but so will buying a lot of EV's, The fact that US national power grid wasn't designed with this in mind isn't any kind of statement that it can't be transformed to do what it is going to be asked to do.

That history goes back to 1882. The US power grid was never "designed"- it just grew and adapted. and it will grow and adapt to deal with electric vehicles and renewable energy, even if Sewage Sweeper can't imagine how.

Only a half-wit like Sewage Sweeper would read the links that he has a posted as meaning anything of the sort.

So what. It means that they are in the process of upgrading the capacity of their local distribution system. Clearly, they should have started on that earlier.

They aren't. Solar and wind both generate power more cheaply. Solar doesn't generate power overnight, but you can store it in batteries during the day, and it's cheaper to supply power from those batteries than it is to burn coal.

The grid is going to have to be changed to cope with new load and new power sources. It has been changing ever since it was first set up back in 1882. It isn't a trivial task, but not in the least over-whelming.

But you will understand what he says in the way that suits your argument, and can be relied to ignore what he is actually saying.

Sewage Sweeper presents "the facts" as he understands them. His understanding is imperfect, and serves what he wants to feel himself to be able say.

What he wants to say is mostly utter nonsense.

Your mind is locked to the present day. The greenies envision shifting away from fossil fuels to so-called renewables, meaning solar and wind. But currently coal provides 37% of the world's electric power

and even more in Europe after Russia cut off the natgas.

This is, simply, false. Neighborhood grids are simply not designed to handle a high percentage of homes with L2 chargers all coming on at the same time. I have already provided the references supporting this.

Well, it will be noticed. Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL, my former employer) did an extensive study of this and determine that the current grid can handle up to 24M EVs without degradation. This is far short of the greenies goals by 2035.

Evening means when the sun is down.

Again, you are thinking about now, not 12 years from now.

Of course they do - they want to meet there customer's energy needs in a safe, reliable manner.

Now, yes, but not by 2035.

Read the references provided.

I should qualify that. There are now cities such as Palo Alto where putting in an L2 charger is problematic. And ALL of the people living w/o off-street parking (apartments, multi-family buildings, etc.) have a major problem with charging while they sleep.

My heat pump has a 10 kW heating element. On a cold winter night, every house in the neighborhood is running at a similar level. So, clearly the distribution grid is built to handle such levels of power. Level 2 chargers are typically 32A or 8 kW. When installed for that level of power, it is seldom they need to run for more than an hour or two. We may find there needs to be coordination by the power company to prevent peak levels at night, from exceeding some level, but this is largely addressed by the number I already provided. The average daily miles driven in the US is just 40, or 10 kWh. The charge level is not set by the EVSE, it's controlled by the EV. So the charging level can be set for less than 2 kW and charged over a six hour period, being barely noticeable by the grid.

Help me understand. Where do they say there will be a problem charging BEVs? Here's what I found...

************************************************************ Major Findings 2028 resource adequacy is likely to be sufficient for high EV penetration assumption.

EV resource adequacy can be doubled with managed charging strategies.

************************************************************

Sounds to me like they are saying... "no problemo"!

So, what is the point of the above citing?

Again, you fail to say anything. I have said that we can charge during the day. No one has said we should not charge during the day. I've simply pointed out that we have sufficient generating and transmission capacity to charge 100% of BEVs at night. Nothing about solar power disputes this. If we continue to add solar power during the day, BEVs will be the optimal load to pair with that, because BEVs have very flexible charging schedules. Remember the 40 miles per day average? That means a typical BEV can go most of the week without charging! So, a few days without charging is not a problem.

LOL! They are for-profit companies.

Can you explain why? Right now, today, if every ICE in the US were replaced by a BEV, we could charge them all at night. Easy, peasy.

I did, but you seem to have failed to.

This gets very old and is why I seldom engage with you. Instead of having an intelligent conversation, your argue in circles and never prove a point.

Unless you have something substantial to say, I'm done here.

Wind turbines and solar cells now generate electricity more cheaply than cola fired power stations and have done for about ten years now. Sewage Sweeper still hasn't noticed.

But pretty much all the investment in future power generation is in renewables, mainly because they provide cheaper power, even after you've figures in the batteries and pumped storage required to firm them up.

Sewage Sweeper's mind is locked about ten years in the past.

Neighbourhood grids were designed to handle the loads around when they were designed. They were also designed to be easily expandable because the demand has been rising more or less steadily since electricity started being delivered to households. We did go through a phase when appliances got more efficient and demand didn't rise as fast. but the system is flexible and has always had to be. Your reference was all about getting around to spending the extra money, rather than any kind of claim that it couldn't be done.

That's actually night.

And make money while investing as little as possible.

Sewage Sweeper is deeply into self-delusion.

Sewage sweeper thinks he knows what's going to happen in 2035

Sewage Sweeper has a reading comprehension problem, but one that he can't recognise. He can always read stuff as meaning what he wants it to means, even if it says something completely different.

Your utility has already provisioned a grid to supply your heating needs. That IS NOT what we are talking about. We ARE talking about ADDING a substantial number of NEW loads that the grid WAS NOT designed for.

Biden and the rest of you greenies ARE NOT satisfied with 24M EVs - you want ALL of the vehicles to be EVs. That is more than TEN TIMES that number.

The nighttime charging will not be an option.

You ignore that you greenies are wanting to take fossil fuel generators OFFLINE! These will NOT be available in a short time frame with woefully inadequate renewable generators to replace them.

Some are, some aren't. But NONE of them can provide power at a loss.

I already provided the study.

Oh, I have - you just don't comprehend them.

Fine by me - I tried to educate you, but you are beyond hope.

There is a place for renewables, but not at a 100% level because they are undependable.

LOL! That would go for you, Bozo!! I am thinking about the future.

I give you an article from the IEEE that refutes that notion, yet you put out that garbage anyhow.

No, nighttime is complete darkness. Solar generation ceases well before sundown.

Pure BULLSHIT! Utilities invest HUGE amounts of money in their infrastructure that must be recovered by the rates they charge. Furthermore, they are HIGHLY regulated, so all of their decisions are carefully scrutinized by regulators and customers.

Well, that is what these lying politicians tell us - maybe you have a more accurate insight, but nothing is coming out of your mouth.

And this bullshit is coming from an idiot that can't even spell his name right and believes in NUKING and FIREBOMBING his OWN COUNTRY!

As is usual, there is nothing in the links you have provided that say we can't charged all the BEVs when all cars on the roads will be BEVs. Your links don't say that, no matter what you think. If they did say this, you would be showing us where it does say that.

I'm tired of trying to talk to someone who gives all appearances of being schizophrenic. When you learn about charging BEVs, I'll be happy to talk to you. Until then, bye.

Sewage Sweeper can't conceive that enough pumped storage and batteries will make them dependable enough. And they aren't so much undependable as intermittent. The sun comes up every morning and the wind blows most of the time.

But the information you put forward about "low cost COAL FIRED plants" hasn't been true for some ten years now, so you are making an incompetent attempt to predict the future based on obsolete information.

It didn't say what you claim it says, like pretty much all your references.

It certainly slow down as the sun gets low in the sky, but it doesn't cease.

As was ENRON. "Regulatory Capture" is the term that describes the way they get away with over-investing in infrastructure and recovering the cost from their consujmers.

Except of course that I don't believe anything of the sort, and Sewage Sweeper is propagating what he wanted my posts to mean, rather than what I actually said.

Hey Bozo, those are YOUR WORDS. Again, you are so incapacitated that you can't even SPELL YOUR OWN NAME!

No, they aren't my words (which you haven't quoted) but rather your decidedly bizarre misunderstanding of what I did post.

And while I confess to making an occasional typo while spelling my own name. that isn't evidence of any kind of incapacity, no matter how much you'd like it to be.