[jimfigler]

At 2.3 kWh per mile average in warm weather, the Lightning would need 43,478 kWh to reach 100K miles. Figure in a 10% loss in charging efficiency, and an overall 20% hit for winter range and preheating (likely a vast underestimate), so about 56,522 kWh. At 28 cents you’re talking $15,826 to get to 100K miles. For a gas truck assuming 18 mpg you’re using 5,555 gallons of gas to 100K miles, at today’s gas price near me of $3.49 per gallon that’s $19,389 to 100K miles. Theoretically you would be saving $3,563 in fuel costs to 100K miles. That level of savings isn’t enough to offset the higher MSRP of the EV.

For me at 35 cents per kWh the math works out to $19,783 for the Lightning vs $19,607 for my 1500 diesel at 28 mpg and $5.49 per gallon. The math still favored the Lightning slightly for me because I had a Pro for less money than the 1500 diesel, that isn’t the case for most people who purchased more expensive trucks.

Take a look at your bill, is that 14 cents for both generation and transmission? My energy cost from the third party provider is 16.999 cents per kWh, but then Eversource hits me for another 18 cents per kWh for delivery.

View attachment 5245

My total bill paid last month was $192.95 for 1240 kwh so 15.6 cents per kwh. So that $8817 for 100k miles using your calculations. Still waiting on my "time of use" plan to start. They need to put in a new meter

 

[Kawartha Lightning]

or, using your logic, a half a tank which would take me the same distance, still costs me at least US$40-US$50 more in my ICE lariat. And of course I have to factor in that oil that I’m gonna need to use to change eventually as well as filters, and for people who live in areas where they must do emissions testing, I no longer have to pay for that either.

I did my due diligence, I did my homework, I ran the numbers and triple checked them. I simply don’t have an enlarged or exaggerated break even point. I find it hilarious that you’re ignoring the fact that I walked into this game almost $30,000 off the sticker price. Using easy math- my “break even” isn’t based on 80 some thousand dollars worth of truck, but 50k. I paid more than 50 for my internal combustion Lariat new. When I traded it in it was worth 42, I owed under 25.

I think the problem with people like you is that you want to convince everyone that because it was a poor decision for you- It must be a poor decision for them as well. I’m not really worried about whether this was a good decision for anybody else other than myself. And I really don’t care whether anyone else thinks it was a poor decision for me – they are not paying my bills or earning my living.

That wasn’t my point at all. And I don’t necessarily disagree with your math either. The only point I was making is that a fully charged lightning can go 500 km [300 miles or so] in ideal conditions, and an ice with a 10 speed can under the same perfect conditions go nearly twice as far on a full tank of gas, it’s an apples and orange comparison. That was actually the only point I was making. With that said, and it had nothing to do with my earlier reference to your post, I do think the manufactures should have to exercise greater transparency, and disclosure about the actual performance of BEV ioutside of the ideal, warm weather conditions that they market to consumers, many of whom have never owned a BEV before. I think that would benefit everyone and create more realistic expectations for new owners.

 

[Busted]

This is an old, anti-EV trope. Please provide documentation if you feel this is really true.

Do you not read news, or at least scan the headlines?

Maybe the California governor? Granted, this was a very limited request, but less than 4% (580,000 or so) of 17,000,000 cars (31,000,000 vehicles) are currently EVs.

We are smart group, and it is simple math so...

How much capacity will California need when electric vehicle is 50%, 80%, or 100% instead of the <4% it is now?

100kwh (/car) * 17,000,000 cars or 31,000,000 total vehicles = 1.7 to 3.1 gwh.​

​

California can produce 42 gwh, so it does not seem like much, but since on the hottest days they don't have enough, 3-10% more might be a lot.​

But since all those Californians are moving to Texas where only 80,000 of the 17,000,000 registered vehicles are EVs, problem solved!

Except, Texas grid operator urges electricity conservation as heat wave drives up demand

Shoot! Back to math...

 

[ChasingCoral]

Do you not read news, or at least scan the headlines?

Maybe the California governor? Granted, this was a very limited request, but less than 4% (580,000 or so) of 17,000,000 cars (31,000,000 vehicles) are EVs.

We are smart group, and it is simple math so...

How much capacity will California need when electric vehicle is 50%, 80%, or 100% instead of the <4% it is now?

100kwh (/car) * 17,000,000 cars or 31,000,000 total vehicles = 1.7 to 3.1 gwh.​

​

California can produce 42 gwh, so it does not seem like much, but since on the hottest days they don't have enough, 3-10% more might be a lot.​

But since all those Californians are moving to Texas where only 80,000 of the 17,000,000 registered vehicles are EVs, problem solved!

Except, Texas grid operator urges electricity conservation as heat wave drives up demand

Shoot! Back to math...

So you don’t have any evidence. You’re using the same “what about-ism” that Fox News uses.

Most EV charging is at night when power use is the lowest. Many parts of Texas even give away free power at night because they can’t just switch off all those windmills.

I call BS until you come back with real evidence.

 

[Busted]

So you don’t have any evidence. You’re using the same “what about-ism” that Fox News uses.

I call BS until you come back with real evidence.

This is the 3d time you have dismissed (or missing) my well research, footnoted, hard, concrete evidence as you are my hilariously funny humor, as indicated by the emojis.

It is starting to hurt my feelings.😢

I guess I'll accept your limitations, like understanding the issue is not the available power at any given moment, but if demand surpasses capacity, which it clearly never does in California, or Texas bc they give away energy at night.

 

[msahin]

Great points. Another one to add:
Cost if electricity in MA isn't driven by the price of gas to generate it or other supply related challenges. Electricity market is nationally competitive. I buy mine from Dynegy, Texas company for 10 cents. In MA, the bluest of all, utility companies charge 16cents per KWH for distribution alone (excluding the cost of electricity!!!). That is more than the average full cost of electricity (distribution+supply) per KwH in 45 states. Utility companies in MA are inefficient behemoths and large union strongholds. Like mafia of 20s and 30s. You can't sell anything here without paying them off. And it is illegal to talk about it in MA.

 

[btreece]

I believe the California request was for charging during the day not overnight (as Coral mentioned). There is a reason many of the utilities are going to a "time of use" pricing schedule.

 

[ChasingCoral]

This is the 3d time you have dismissed (or missing) my well research, footnoted, hard, concrete evidence as you are my hilariously funny humor, as indicated by the emojis.

It is starting to hurt my feelings.😢

I guess I'll accept your limitations, like understanding the issue is not the available power at any given moment, but if demand surpasses capacity, which it clearly never does in California, or Texas bc they give away energy at night.

We have no idea where that diagram is from or when it occurred. Please provide URL if you aren't going to explain the figure.

However, wherever it was and whenever it was it clearly shows the only problem time is during peak evening periods. It clearly shows this is only a problem 5-6 hours a day at that location and time. Use the scheduled charging in your truck and there is no no conflict.

Perhaps you need some basics on this?

 

[Voltz]

We have no idea where that diagram is from or when it occurred.

It looks like just another successful day somewhere of balancing grid supply with demand. It's probably among the most difficult tasks grid operators face. I imagine it will be a lot easier when meaningful storage, including V2G, becomes available for quickly managing demand spikes.

 

[ChasingCoral]

It looks like just another successful day somewhere of balancing grid supply with demand. It's probably among the most difficult tasks grid operators face. I imagine it will be a lot easier when meaningful storage, including V2G, becomes available for quickly managing demand spikes.

Agreed. CA analyzed what happened during this summer's heat stress and found that home storage had dramatically improved their over-peaking. They only had to call for major reductions for about 15 minutes.

 

[Busted]

We have no idea where that diagram is from or when it occurred. Please provide URL if you aren't going to explain the figure.

...it clearly shows the only problem time is during peak evening periods. It clearly shows this is only a problem 5-6 hours a day at that location and time...

Perhaps you need some basics on this?

Gee. I am reminded on Twain's warning -- Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

Especially when the one with the most posts is responding - must be someone who never lets a thought go unexpressed.

The URL and cites requested are provided in the blue letters in the original post - they are called links.

 

[ChasingCoral]

Gee. I am reminded on Twain's warning -- Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

Especially when the one with the most posts is responding - must be someone who never lets a thought go unexpressed.

The URL and cites requested are provided in the blue letters in the original post - they are called links.

OK, here goes:

Your estimate is 17 million cars and 31 million vehicles are consistent with Office of Highway Policy Information - Policy | Federal Highway Administration records. While 100kWh is probably high for cars, it is low for trucks and very low for buses but we can go with that. This also assumes every BEV owner charges completely every night. Your concern, then, is over ~3.1 GWh of energy on a CA statewide system capable of over 40 GW* of instantaneous production capacity per California ISO - Today's Outlook. Your references to the CA incidents in August/September of this year and in Texas in July of this year represent problems with peak load that were issues long before we had significant EVs on the road and, as you point out, are occurring in both-high BEV and low-BEV adoption states.

What is unclear is why you seem to think that 3.1 GWh of BEV charging would occur during peak load times. The period of the demand response event you posted (from California ISO) shows the critical demand situation to have only occurred from 17:00-20:25 on September 1, 2022. Even on that one day in September, capacity well exceeded demand for over 20 hours of the day.

The article you quote from The NY Times includes:
"A spokeswoman for the governor, Erin Mellon, said that the request to avoid charging electrical vehicles has been misrepresented by critics of California’s efforts to curb emissions ...
We’re not saying don’t charge them,” she said. “We’re just saying don’t charge them between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m.”

And, of course, most BEV drivers don't charge between those hours. Time of Use pricing has existed in CA for years (California utilities prep nation's biggest time-of-use rate rollout). These generally have peak pricing with highest rates from 4:00pm to 9:00pm.

Of course, CA generally has demand far below capacity. Here's today's demand curve:

Peaks are around 29 MW.

So far, you have not addressed important issues with you arguments:

• 95% of BEV charging is done at home and is far from instantaneous. Typical charge times range from 5-10 hours. Even if we assume 5 hours charge time, that drops 3.1 kWh total charging to around 0.62 MW demand if all the charging occurs simultaneously, which it won't.
• Many BEV drivers already use charging schedules that exist within their vehicles or their EVSEs to shift charging times away from peak demand periods. Most BEV drivers in places like CA utilize further power company incentives to charge during times of the day when demand is lowest. For example:
  • Costs on the Home Charging EV2-A rate are lowest from 12 a.m. to 3 p.m., every day, including weekends and holidays when demand is lowest, making this the best time to charge your vehicle. Electricity is more expensive during Peak (4 - 9 p.m.) and Partial-Peak (3 - 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. - 12 a.m.) periods. (EV Savings Calculator - PG&E)
• Even in your scenario of all CA vehicles going electric, even on the highest peak days, they could all easily charge simultaneously today between midnight and 5:00am without causing a hiccup to the grid.
• While some parts of Texas have had mid-summer peaking issues as well, there are major programs through which utility customers get free electricity on nights and weekends in Texas (What Is a Free Nights & Weekends Plan?). That doesn't sound like a situation where BEV adoption will break the grid, now does it?

*Important note:

California can produce 42 gwh, so it does not seem like much, but since on the hottest days they don't have enough, 3-10% more might be a lot.​

Please note that you have made a critical mistake in your units. CA production is ~40 GW, not GWh. Differences between your value of 42 gwh (sic) capacity and this morning's value of 39.925 GW demand capacity represent normal variations in production. That variation alone is around 3 GW and "Does not include solar and wind or Demand Response resources."

And by the way:

Gee. I am reminded on Twain's warning -- Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

There is no credible evidence Mark Twain ever said that. You are most likely misquoting both Yul Brenner and Proverbs 26.

 

[SCVLightning]

Just curious if anyone can share.

How much has your electricity usage gone up since you got your lightning? How many miles do you drive?

I expect to drive about 1500 per month, live in Los angeles so I’m dealing with so cal Edison

 

[Brew]

Just curious if anyone can share.

How much has your electricity usage gone up since you got your lightning? How many miles do you drive?

I expect to drive about 1500 per month, live in Los angeles so I’m dealing with so cal Edison

I’m with SCE on TOU Prime, I believe. I’ve put a little over 3,000 miles on my f150 in the past two months. Probably about $100 extra per month…but I also installed Solar in December. You’ve got until March (maybe April) to get in before NEM 2.0 is gone

 

[Voltz]

I expect to drive about 1500 per month, live in Los angeles so I’m dealing with so cal Edison

If you're doing home chargnig, I'll bet you won't be far off in your estimate if you multiply your delivered electric rate (at the time you expect to be doing home charging) by 750 kWh/month

 

[Jarratt]

Where is all the extra electric going to come from to fill the EV demand? Many places struggle to provide enough electric now.

It's going to come from renewable energy and, perhaps, nuclear. In locales w/o a lot of sun/wind, the power will be "wheeled in" from locales with surplus generation. This isn't going to happen right away, but it is going to happen a lot faster than many think.

Of course this is a nonissue for folks who can generate their own electrons. Also, it's important to remember that the benefit of a BEV is not just reduced energy cost, it's vastly reduced maintenance and, if one charges at home, not having downtime at gas stations.

 

[johnnycwat]

Sure no down time at gas stations but 45 min every few hours on a road trip makes for a long day, and that's IF you can find a charge station.