EV Charger question

Status
Not open for further replies.
wwhitney said:
Compared to the gasoline equivalent, yes the F-150 Lightning will generate less pollution over its lifetime. [The impacts will be different, so that requires a judgement as to the tradeoffs involved, but is a pretty safe call assuming the truck doesn't suffer an infant death through collision, etc.]

And yes, you currently pay a premium for that. Most likely the net subsidies are still biased towards the gasoline F-150, but even if not, the electric vehicle market is still maturing, so that's not unexpected.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Bull crap, it is not green. Most do NOT take into account how much mining it takes to get the battery, a truck that ways thousands of pounds more kills tires, and no body accounts for the energy to charge a battery for 9.5 hours at 80 amps. Let alone where that power comes from. Show me a study that takes all that into account especually for trucks. Please.

What is the offset they are using for charging? Do they take into account the natural gas, solar, or coal to charge the truck? How much polution is generated in charging a battery at 80amps for 9.5 hours(mostly dead battery on f150).
 
Got a Juice box 40 to hookup next week for a doctor. It calls for a nema 14-50 receptacle, even though the specs say it’s 240 only. I told the doctor it will cost him another $1.50 a foot for a neutral he does not need!
 
SSDriver said:
Bull crap, it is not green.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you are just mistaken on the facts.

SSDriver said:
Show me a study that takes all that into account especually for trucks. Please.
Click to expand...
I don't have such a study handy, but the recent article in the NY Times below does make the point that if you are charging a F-150 Lightning from the grid, using the average carbon usage of the grid in the US, driving a F-150 Lightning is comparable in carbon usage (including manufacturing) to driving a very small gasoline car.

Given the large disparity in carbon usage between a very small gasoline car and a gasoline pickup truck, that's a lot of benefit over a lifetime of driving that the F-150 Lightning has vs a gasoline F-150, to make up for the production level negatives such as mining and the operational negatives such greater tire wear due to heavier weight.

So I would amazed if the balance wasn't still in favor of the F-150 Lightning over the F-150 gasoline. Note that my statement was very careful to compare similar size vehicles and a typical lifetime of driving.

If this article isn't available to you (paywall), I can PM you a PDF. But the article has some hyperlinks that may include studies that do consider everything you asked for.

www.nytimes.com

Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck? (Published 2023)

E.V.s are usually a more climate-friendly option. But as they bulk up, their emissions savings, and other environmental and safety benefits, begin to diminish.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Cheers, Wayne
 
Last edited:
I want to see the study with actual numbers. The article shows some dumb chart with color dots and says everything is from carbon counter website. I click on the link and it just says"everything has been accounted for from generation ,etc" no numbers,no actual study.

Then the NY times article says the real truth.
"The same report found that the strain on key mineral supplies could be eased by reducing car dependence in the United States," yep the only way this works.
 
SSDriver said:
I want to see the study with actual numbers. The article shows some dumb chart with color dots and says everything is from carbon counter website. I click on the link and it just says"everything has been accounted for from generation ,etc" no numbers,no actual study.
Click to expand...
If you click on the info icon at the carboncounter.com website, it refers you to this article, which I haven't read:


Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
If you click on the info icon at the carboncounter.com website, it refers you to this article, which I haven't read:


Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Thanks I will have to read it entirely. First thing that jumped out as total BS when skimming trough. How they calculated their green energy charging cost.

"For the low-carbon electricity mix, we assume a hypothetical energy-supply portfolio composed of 50% wind and 12.5% each of hydro, solar photovoltaic, biomass, and nuclear energy."

No way 50% of clean energy charging for the US comes from wind. And in no way in the US does hydro, biomass, solar and nuclear have even amounts of electricity generation. This is why I like to see the studies.

So far an article refers to a study, the study websites refers it source as a different article, article is already majorly flawed with assumption. Just barely scratching the surface and no real study yet.
 
SSDriver said:
Thanks I will have to read it entirely. First thing that jumped out as total BS when skimming trough. How they calculated their green energy charging cost.
Click to expand...
You quoted one future possibility the article is considering, a low-carbon electricity mix. They are not assuming that electricity mix for any current results. Figure 4 includes it as one of the possible future ways to reduce carbon intensivity of the fleet. Figure 5 looks at how increasing penetration of a low carbon electricity in the market would affect future carbon intensivity.

SSDriver said:
article is already majorly flawed with assumption.
Click to expand...
Nope, you just skimmed it too quickly. Of course I only skimmed it myself, so I might have missed some other flawed assumption.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Last edited:
hillbilly1 said:
Got a Juice box 40 to hookup next week for a doctor. It calls for a nema 14-50 receptacle, even though the specs say it’s 240 only. I told the doctor it will cost him another $1.50 a foot for a neutral he does not need!
Click to expand...

They sell that exact model in a hard-wired version. Unless portability is required, that sounds like it would have been a better option.
 
hillbilly1 said:
Ford just had a stop production issued on the Lightning, apparently battery problems.
Click to expand...

One caught fire at final inspection. The official announcement was kind of cryptic, but they alluded to an assembly problem. Didn’t say whether it was truck assembly or battery assembly.

They also put a hold on all trucks in transit, but those at dealers can be sold. Also stated that they “have no reason to believe trucks in service are affected by the problem.” I’ve head that one before! We’ll see how it unfolds.
 
It's a good thing that the internet provides a conduit for the correct information to be disseminated by anonymous individuals to show how everyone else in the world is so wrong in what they believe. :D
 
wwhitney said:
You quoted one future possibility the article is considering, a low-carbon electricity mix. They are not assuming that electricity mix for any current results. Figure 4 includes it as one of the possible future ways to reduce carbon intensivity of the fleet. Figure 5 looks at how increasing penetration of a low carbon electricity in the market would affect future carbon intensivity.


Nope, you just skimmed it too quickly. Of course I only skimmed it myself, so I might have missed some other flawed assumption.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
After looking at it more closely I don't see anywhere in the article(yes article, not a study) where they actually use data for today to show the life cycle of an EV and its emissions. Everything is based off of using theoretical goals and approximations of what clean energy they think would be used. Like the 50% of clean energy coming from wind. Those numbers are unicorn rainbow numbers if they think by 2030 or 2040 half of all vehicle charging will be done with wind. The amount of pure space to produce enough wind energy to equal what NG or coal is producing is not feasible and simply not possible in many areas. I don't see where they show emissions based off what is available today. The way our government, beurocracys, and utility's function it will no way be updated(if possible to update) the infrastructure by the dates they are using for their approximations.
ggunn said:
It's a good thing that the internet provides a conduit for the correct information to be disseminated by anonymous individuals to show how everyone else in the world is so wrong in what they believe. :D
Click to expand...
My main problem is I can't find any single study based off of numbers. Every article I find is an article linking to an article that links to a website of FACTs that links to other articles. No actual study. The last link looks to be a scientific hypothesis but it's based off all approximations of future goals (not actual current electical usage)and they don't show where they even get their "carbon emission" numbers that they use for a comparison.
 
SSDriver said:
After looking at it more closely I don't see anywhere in the article(yes article, not a study) where they actually use data for today to show the life cycle of an EV and its emissions.
Click to expand...
I haven't read the 2016 study referenced above, but did you see the note on carboncounter.com (again on the info page) where it says "A detailed description of changes is available," in reference to how the current website was updated to 2021 data vs that article? It provides this link, which specifies the source of all the numbers used:


Some notable excerpts:

The default emissions intensity for electricity production has been updated from 623 gCO2eq/kWh to 450 gCO2eq/kWh based on eGRID data https://www.epa.gov/egrid/summary-data .

Emissions inventories for the production of vehicles and fuels were updated to GREET 2019 (from GREET 2014). In addition, updated sources were used to estimate emissions from the production of lithium-ion batteries [refs], and the default emissions changed from 52 kgCO2eq/kWh to 100 kgCO2eq/kWh.

For info on GREET (The Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies Model, which I haven't looked at):


All these references I've provided I've found with 10 minutes of carefully looking at the website and checking the references. You can do the same if you are interested in chasing down the details.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
I haven't read the 2016 study referenced above, but did you see the note on carboncounter.com (again on the info page) where it says "A detailed description of changes is available," in reference to how the current website was updated to 2021 data vs that article? It provides this link, which specifies the source of all the numbers used:


Some notable excerpts:

The default emissions intensity for electricity production has been updated from 623 gCO2eq/kWh to 450 gCO2eq/kWh based on eGRID data https://www.epa.gov/egrid/summary-data .

Emissions inventories for the production of vehicles and fuels were updated to GREET 2019 (from GREET 2014). In addition, updated sources were used to estimate emissions from the production of lithium-ion batteries [refs], and the default emissions changed from 52 kgCO2eq/kWh to 100 kgCO2eq/kWh.

For info on GREET (The Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies Model, which I haven't looked at):


All these references I've provided I've found with 10 minutes of carefully looking at the website and checking the references. You can do the same if you are interested in chasing down the details.

Cheers, Wayne.
Click to expand...
If you read the article it still uses a approximation as time goes by as to what THEY THINK the car will be using to charge. Unfortunately they are estimating it using fairytale clean energy charging with Wind as a 50% of the source, etc. They don't have a model in their "study" that uses real life energy sources for the entire life cycle of the vehicle. Our utility infrastructure is no where near what they are using to estimate FUTURE charging demands and there is no way possible at this time to achieve the updates to get there. So the whole "study" is moot. Hydro and wind in USA will never be able to create enough energy to reach the percentage of charging they use in their model.

The GREET emissions scale used for the numbers is based of of USA data for energy production, manufacturing, and mining. Unfortunately most of this stuff is mined and manufactured in country's that have little to no SMOG care or concerns and the emissions to make/manufacture these items will not be accurate. The entire reason these items come from overseas is due to cost. They keep the cost down by cheap labor and NO oversight on emissions standards for production or mining for materials.
 
I also find it funny that all these articles list Nuclear as clean energy and part of their models. I do believe Nuclear energy is fairly clean the way it is produced by todays standards (not 50 years ago). However the same people pushing clean energy want to get rid of nuclear. And nuclear plants are closing in the USA at an alarming rate. So for their FUTURE model nuclear will not be used nearly as much. Clean energy simply doesn't scale well across most of the USA for the demands that we need especially if we have everyone going to EV cars. My house during summer with the AC running draws about 32 amps as the AC cycles on and off every 15 minutes to 30 min during the heat. One Ford F150 can draw 80 amps continuously while charging during OFF PEAK hours at night when solar is useless. My neighborhood uses one 50 KVA transformer per 8-10 houses. That will be completely outdated and useless if all my neighbors go EV. Our utility's simply cant handle the load. If we expect solar to help you would need battery systems on all houses and that surely isn't accounted for in any of these models. Or the construction for Utilities to update the infrastructure isn't accounted for either. What all these articles lack is the reality that clean energy to charge these vehicles is not possible if every car (or most cars) become EV. Doesn't matter, money is to be made by politicians that all seem to have their hands (investments) in some sort of EV or clean energy company.
 
SSDriver said:
If you read the article it still uses a approximation as time goes by as to what THEY THINK the car will be using to charge.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's correct. For example, Figure 1 says that it is based on 623 gCO2eq/kWh, not some decreasing figure over time as the grid improves. And the grid has improved, as per the excerpt in my earlier post today.

Do you have a reference to a figure or graph or projection describing current vehicles that is based on an assumed decreasing carbon intensity electric grid?

The point of the paper is sort of the opposite of that: it starts off computing the carbon intensity of current Light Duty Vehicle options (which the carboncounter.com website tells you). Then it determines what carbon intensity targets would be required for LDV fleets in 2030, 2040 and 2050 to meet certain climate goals. Then it posits some hypothetical ways to reduce the LDV fleet carbon intensity (including lower the carbon intensity of the electric grid) and tells you want impact those changes would have on the LDV fleet carbon intensity, and how those results would compare to the 2030, 2040, and 2050 targets.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top