Assumptions for future proofing for residential electric car

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.
junkhound said:
Assume a standby generator!
Once nearly EVERBODY has an electric car in the FUTURE expect the grid to collapse quite often - unless fusion power becomes a reality.
Click to expand...
No collapse, everyone will have a flying Delorean making 1.21 gigawatts with it's internal fusion generator.
Seriously though currently no truly clean energy available nuclear has disposal and accident implications, of course fossil fuels have been a hotbed of issues. Even Solar has issue with toxic components both in production and disposal:
honuaolabioenergy.com

Environmental Impact of Solar Panel Manufacturing

The clean energy production potential of solar panels is undeniable and plays an important role in Hawaii’s renewable energy future.
honuaolabioenergy.com
Not sure of fusion and potential environmental and other hazardous impacts both in use and disposal but the IAEA claims it to be a clean safe option but that is yet to be seen.

Fusion - Frequently asked questions | International Atomic Energy Agency

www.iaea.org www.iaea.org
 
electrofelon said:
I wasn't around, but I don't recall hearing about that happening when motors, air conditioning, electric heat, and suburbs happened. I'm pretty sure it will be just fine.
Click to expand...
POCO's will handle it with demand charges, load shedding, load controls, etc. when needed, and they did some of those things at times when growth had occurred in the past.

You want to charge your car at any hour of the day - it may cost you more than if you agree to some load schedule plan that can put limitations on when you can charge.

We have this right now in my area with farmers irrigation services. If you want 24/7 ability you can have it, but it will cost more than if you agree to give them some control over when you can water. Just because you gave them control don't mean you will always be controlled, just when peak demand is at levels where they deem necessary to start controlling some loads. Depending on what you subscribed to will determine if you are one the first ones shut down and for how long can they shut you down is also in the agreements.
 
marmathsen said:
Well you certainly have thought more about this than I have.

I'm hoping that the market will see the glut in the supply and a better solution will come about than simply installing generators everywhere. Nuclear seems like a good option here but I know traditional reactors have unfortunately long permit and build times. Although if I'm not mistaken aren't the more recent generations of reactors able to be built quicker?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Biggest problem with Nuclear is likely the "not in my backyard" aspect. So there is nowhere to build one for the most part. People still want energy though.

Don't matter that there is little population in areas that they may seek out, what population is there will fight it as a general rule, and the local government is where you will start with getting the necessary zoning and building permits.
 
marmathsen said:
In a residence, when submitting a bid, or doing calculations, or submitting a service application, what size do you assume for a FUTURE electric car charger? or multiple cars?

Tesla's wall charger used to be able to supply 80A max at 240V, but now it is only rated for 48A. I thought Porsche was going to offer a high capacity home charger but theirs looks like it's only 40A max.

Are there any HOME chargers that exceed 48A? Do you assume load sharing if there might be multiple cars?

Rob
Click to expand...
If anything I would run raceway (maybe 1 inch or 1.25 inch minimum) through any spaces that may be difficult to run through later on. Can pull conductors when the time comes they are needed.

Consider the fact in some instances they may even have multiple EV's someday.
 
My inclination is if you think you might need a car charger in the garage some day is put a 100 (or even 200) amp pb in the garage. That is about as future proof as it gets.
 
petersonra said:
My inclination is if you think you might need a car charger in the garage some day is put a 100 (or even 200) amp pb in the garage. That is about as future proof as it gets.
Click to expand...
If you're going to put it in the garage, I see a revived future for asbestos in home construction! At least at the current state of EV battery technology.
 
gadfly56 said:
If you're going to put it in the garage, I see a revived future for asbestos in home construction! At least at the current state of EV battery technology.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're extrapolating from one defective product (Bolt EV), which is not a good method for forecasting. The observed fire rate of the Bolt EV is comparable to the background rate of garage fires for all reasons in the US (both ~1 in 10,000 per year).

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Sounds like you're extrapolating from one defective product (Bolt EV), which is not a good method for forecasting. The observed fire rate of the Bolt EV is comparable to the background rate of garage fires for all reasons in the US (both ~1 in 10,000 per year).

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Plus, it's not like gas cars don't catch on fire. I have had two friends that have had their cars catch on fire. One was completely consumed.I have seen one or two more burning on the side of the highway over the years.
 
electrofelon said:
Plus, it's not like gas cars don't catch on fire. I have had two friends that have had their cars catch on fire. One was completely consumed.I have seen one or two more burning on the side of the highway over the years.
Click to expand...
To be fair, all but one (to my knowledge) of the Bolt EV fires have been in parked cars. The rate of ICE parked cars catching fire is much lower than the overall ICE car fire rate, although it does happen. E.g. one recall I heard about involved hot oil leaking on some flammable component in the engine compartment, so the cars had a propensity to catch on fire some time after being driven, once enough hot oil had accumulated in the wrong place.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
To be fair, all but one (to my knowledge) of the Bolt EV fires have been in parked cars. The rate of ICE parked cars catching fire is much lower than the overall ICE car fire rate, although it does happen. E.g. one recall I heard about involved hot oil leaking on some flammable component in the engine compartment, so the cars had a propensity to catch on fire some time after being driven, once enough hot oil had accumulated in the wrong place.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
The longer it has been since it was driven the more chance it also had to cool down though.

One under the hood car fire I can recall was suspected to be because of failed power steering line spraying fluid onto hot component. This was a 1970's car.

accumulated oil probably seldom gets hot enough to burn and is reason it doesn't burn off slowly as it leaks out vs accumulating.

I suppose a greater chance is immediately after shutting down when you also remove any cooling effects because of shut down.
 
wwhitney said:
To be fair, all but one (to my knowledge) of the Bolt EV fires have been in parked cars. The rate of ICE parked cars catching fire is much lower than the overall ICE car fire rate, although it does happen. E.g. one recall I heard about involved hot oil leaking on some flammable component in the engine compartment, so the cars had a propensity to catch on fire some time after being driven, once enough hot oil had accumulated in the wrong place.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Yeah ICE cars are certainly more likely to burn while running. One of the cases I mentioned in post 30, the car was just sitting for at least several hours....
 
wwhitney said:
To be fair, all but one (to my knowledge) of the Bolt EV fires have been in parked cars. The rate of ICE parked cars catching fire is much lower than the overall ICE car fire rate, although it does happen. E.g. one recall I heard about involved hot oil leaking on some flammable component in the engine compartment, so the cars had a propensity to catch on fire some time after being driven, once enough hot oil had accumulated in the wrong place.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

My 2000 F150 had a recall to replace a pressure activated switch mounted near the master cylinder. It would fail and spray brake fluid onto the exhaust manifold. Several fires attributed to the failure. The recall involved hundreds of thousands of trucks, SUVs, and vans.
 
kwired said:
... accumulated oil probably seldom gets hot enough to burn and is reason it doesn't burn off slowly as it leaks out vs accumulating. ...
Click to expand...
I had a leaking valve-cover gasket turn into an underhood oil fire when it leaked oil onto the exhaust manifold. Again, 1970s model.
I wouldn't assume that accumulated oil is too heavy to ignite; I once saw an asphalt street burn.

Gaskets are among the seldom-noticed components that engineers have improved over the years, and stamped-steel valve covers have largely been replaced with cast aluminum or molded frp.
 
drcampbell said:
Gaskets are among the seldom-noticed components that engineers have improved over the years, and stamped-steel valve covers have largely been replaced with cast aluminum or molded frp.
Click to expand...

When asbestos was first removed from gaskets in the 70s, there was virtually no high-temperature application that didn’t leak with the possible exception of extremely flat, rigid joints such as head gaskets. Almost every oil pan and valve cover joint leaked eventually.

From that point, there was nowhere to go but up!
 
electrofelon said:
Plus, it's not like gas cars don't catch on fire. I have had two friends that have had their cars catch on fire. One was completely consumed.I have seen one or two more burning on the side of the highway over the years.
Click to expand...
Ford had an issue with their trucks catching on fire years ago, and it was electrical, not anything to do with the gas engine, it was the power mirrors.
 
Does anyone see the amp draw going down on future electric vehicle chargers?
I mean if todays cars require a 50 amp charger does it make sense that future cars may only need a 30 amp charger?
 
qcroanoke said:
Does anyone see the amp draw going down on future electric vehicle chargers?
I mean if todays cars require a 50 amp charger does it make sense that future cars may only need a 30 amp charger?
Click to expand...
It may be like the computer world, motor efficiency may go up, I can remember running 60 amp three phase power to servers in computer rooms, now, it’s a 20 circuit that runs a server many times more powerful. May not get to that point of efficiency, but you may be right.
 
hillbilly1 said:
Ford had an issue with their trucks catching on fire years ago, and it was electrical, not anything to do with the gas engine, it was the power mirrors.
Click to expand...
Ford has had more than one issue with vehicles catching fire.

retirede said:
When asbestos was first removed from gaskets in the 70s, there was virtually no high-temperature application that didn’t leak ...
Click to expand...
I had a 1953 engine that always leaked. The rocker cover was stamped steel and "secured" with two bolts in its crown. Asbestos or not, it was impossible to maintain sufficient clamping pressure -- the cover would crush before the gasket sealed. And temperature wasn't the issue; the gasket temperature never even approached 100°C. We're smarter now. (or a leak-free engine is more of a selling point)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top