Europe EV charging network

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Germany's Opel town shows struggle for Europe to plug in electric cars

Looks like a reality check. We never plan comprehensively, do we? No, we scream and shout, we declare climate emergencies and only then, when problems begin to pop up, we stop to think how all these declarations will actually work out.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

The theory may be sound, but the operational reality is starting to bite...and this is in a town with everything going for it plus goverment subsidies.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 6/7/2019 at 4:01 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

Germany's Opel town shows struggle for Europe to plug in electric cars

Looks like a reality check. We never plan comprehensively, do we? No, we scream and shout, we declare climate emergencies and only then, when problems begin to pop up, we stop to think how all these declarations will actually work out.

 

And so the lemming suicide brigade marches on, dauntless and defiant (and clueless).

 

AOC wants America to lead the world — backward

29-year old ex-bartender and freshman U.S. Representative (D-NY) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez received thunderous environmentalist and media acclaim when she introduced her Green New Deal resolution in the House and Ed Markey (D-MA) submitted it in the Senate. It was quickly endorsed or cosponsored by scores of House and Senate Dems, including many who want to run against President Trump in 2020.

But within days the GND was subjected to rigorous analysis (and ridicule) by energy experts, President Trump, Republicans, conservative pundits and even some Democrats. Their disdain is well-founded.

Asserting yet again that “manmade climate change” poses an “existential threat” to people and planet – with only a dozen years before total disaster strikes – the Green New Deal demands that the United States convert to 100% “renewable” energy within ten years. It also proclaims an equally urgent need to abandon free enterprise capitalism in favor of 100% socialist economic and “social justice” policies.

In the energy arena, AOC’s GND requires that fossil fuels, nuclear power and even waste-to-energy and large-scale hydroelectric facilities be eliminated from the US energy mix. Coal, oil and natural gas leasing and development on federally controlled Western lands would be banned, as would exports of those fuels.

Internal combustion cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats would be replaced with electric versions, or eradicated. Airplanes would be replaced by high-speed rail. And every house and building in America would be gutted, rebuilt or retrofitted with “state of the art efficiency” technologies. That’s for starters.

The original “draft” resolution (since replaced on AOC’s website) even called for getting rid of “farting cows” – to prevent methane from increasing above its current minuscule 0.00017% of the atmosphere. So “bugs not beef” in our diets – and no more cheese, milk, yogurt or Baskin Robbins.

In the “social justice and fairness” arena, the Cortez-Markey GND provides that every American would get government-guaranteed jobs, with “family-sustaining” wages and pensions; free college or trade school; “healthy organic” food; “safe, affordable, adequate” and energy-efficient homes; and support for ethnic and economic “communities” that “historically” were harmed “first and most” by “dirty energy.”

Saturday Night Live could not have crafted a better parody of energy, economic and scientific reality.  ...

 

...  Lead the world in economic suicide, environmental degradation, plummeting living standards, shorter life spans and societal upheaval would be a more accurate description of her GND.  ...

 

 ...  Their intransigence on those resources means giving up bonuses, rents, royalties, taxes and millions of high-paying jobs. Billions of dollars in revenues to government will be replaced by billions of dollars in subsidies from government. America won’t even be able to manufacture GND energy systems because we will not have either the reliable, affordable fuels to operate factories nor the necessary raw materials.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue to use fossil fuels, emit greenhouse gases, surge ahead of us economically – and sell us trillions of dollars of Green New Deal energy systems. Those that come from China might even have grid-hacker-friendly portals built right into their motherboards.

Shuttering nuclear and hydro power plants – and converting our transportation and shipping systems from gasoline and diesel – would mean the USA will need twice as much electricity as it generates today. Closing waste-to-energy facilities would add to those demands – and to landfill requirements.  ...

 

...  GND advocates seek a total, virtually totalitarian transformation of the US energy and transportation system, economy, buildings, industries, employment base, living standards and individual freedoms. They are using American citizens as guinea pigs in this grand experiment.

They need to tell us what resources will be required … how and where they will get them … how this scheme will work. That’s not likely to happen – because they don’t have a clue, and don’t care. They also can’t prove climate fluctuations and weather events are unprecedented and caused by fossil fuels.

So let’s have those House and Senate votes on the Green New Deal. Let’s see who stands where on this.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 6/7/2019 at 4:01 AM, Marina Schwarz said:

Germany's Opel town shows struggle for Europe to plug in electric cars

Looks like a reality check. We never plan comprehensively, do we? No, we scream and shout, we declare climate emergencies and only then, when problems begin to pop up, we stop to think how all these declarations will actually work out.

What grates on me is that all those charging poles could easily have a household-voltage socket on the back side, so that the electric bicycle crowd could do a re-charge.  That would use only a few pennies of current, less than a dime, no need for a meter on that.  Yet NONE of these posts, including the ones in the USA, are ever found with that feature.  Cheap, or at least cheaper, electric bikes would provide far more oomph  for the buck than anything else, yet the municipalities ignore it.  I mean, come on, how hard is it to install one lousy little socket?  (And maybe an eyebolt so you can lock your bike to it 🙂).

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

This is why I suggest a nice after-market business building these mini-trailers for cars, where the trailer has two slide-in channels that mate with box members under the car.  The trailer is close-coupled so that it is rigid to the car, and has two smaller wheels underneath to bear the weight.  On that trailer is a small diesel, something around 32 hp., direct-coupled to a generator, which in turn you plug in via flex cable to the car battery. 

Now, when you are putt-putting around town, the trailer is left off.  Want to go on a long excursion?  No problem; carry your portable re-charge machine with you, and leave it running as you drive.  This dramatically extends range, and makes for continuous re-charge if you stop and park for 15 minutes at some coffee shop enroute.  It makes you independent of those hotel parking places you pull into late at night to find some F-250 pick-up sitting in the recharge slot  (and you would be surprised how often that happens, and how loathe hotel staff is to kick that fellow out of bed to go move it.  They won't.) 

Now that is a nice little business.  And that trailer gen-set acts as a household generator for the times your power company has a line failure, which happens often enough in ice storms in the winter up in the snow belt. Enjoy!

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

32 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Airplanes would be replaced by high-speed rail

I'm sorry? High-speed rail over the Atlantic and the Pacific? How interesting.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

46 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

I'm sorry? High-speed rail over the Atlantic and the Pacific? How interesting.

Yep, clueless.  See attached New Green Deal FAQ, which got backtracked fairly quickly.

New Green Deal FAQ.pdf

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The theory may be sound, but the operational reality is starting to bite...and this is in a town with everything going for it plus goverment subsidies.

In the majority of cases people have access at home and can charge at 3-6KW overnight. This should be the preferred option for any EV driver as it is likely to be cheaper, especially if using off peak tariffs and as its a slow charge not cook the battery.

If I lived in an apartment I would currently opt for a Hybrid until charging infrastructure is more widespread.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

So, there is no feasible infrastructure in place at the moment, with the technology present, to charge EV's for essentially anything other than driving around town, in a set radius from your home. Is that correct? If it is, why would anyone in their right mind by one now or up to the point that they can actually compete with gasolie or diesel engines in the catagories of price, usefullness, convenience, payload and range between 'fill-ups'?

Apparently the technology is 'not there yet', if you buy one now it will be obsolete as soon as ANY new improvement in the technology is made.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So, there is no feasible infrastructure in place at the moment, with the technology present, to charge EV's for essentially anything other than driving around town, in a set radius from your home. Is that correct? If it is, why would anyone in their right mind by one now or up to the point that they can actually compete with gasolie or diesel engines in the catagories of price, usefullness, convenience, payload and range between 'fill-ups'?

Careful there Douglas, your logic may upset the people who want oil & gas to stay in the ground forever, in their quest to tax mankind into extinction.  Oops, I meant save mankind from extinction.

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So, there is no feasible infrastructure in place at the moment, with the technology present, to charge EV's for essentially anything other than driving around town, in a set radius from your home. Is that correct? If it is, why would anyone in their right mind by one now or up to the point that they can actually compete with gasolie or diesel engines in the catagories of price, usefullness, convenience, payload and range between 'fill-ups'?

Apparently the technology is 'not there yet', if you buy one now it will be obsolete as soon as ANY new improvement in the technology is made.

Where are you talking about?

See this for a map of public EV points in the UK and Ireland. 

https://www.zap-map.com/live/

I would concede though that EV's are better for urban settings and where daily range limits don't exceed the battery capacity but effectively you can get all round the Uk and Ireland with public charging capacity at sufficient locations. 

 

Screen shot of ZAP Map below

Edited June 10, 2019 by NickW

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Good for the UK and Ireland, wish them well.

As for the rest of the world with wide open space, deserts or significant mountain ranges, quit preaching to us!

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Good for the UK and Ireland, wish them well.

As for the rest of the world with wide open space, deserts or significant mountain ranges, quit preaching to us!

But the article you were chuntering about concerned Europe. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

And the 'Screen shot of ZAP Map below' shows what? Outer Mongolia?

There are economies of scale to consider. I remember a discussion years ago where someone was 'chuntering' about how European countries (plural) had so much better rail systems that the US and that they were utilized more.

Someone finally pointed out that the distances involved between major US cities is generally much greater than in Europe. I think the example used was that it is farther from Denver to Baltimore than from London to Moscow.

Regardless, the differences in scale are obvious and should be considered.